MALTA BOXING COMMISSION - UK, SCOTLAND & IRELAND SANCTIONING

[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.

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

Because being forced to choose IS a restraint of trade, no matter how u look at it, i cant see anyone falling foul of any law by being told to choose between chicken and fish, because if they willing paid for it they could have both, just like if someone willingly pays for both licenses i see no reason why they too shouldnt be allowed to choose both...

[leejonesjnr]

Because being forced to choose IS a restraint of trade, no matter how u look at it, i cant see anyone falling foul of any law by being told to choose between chicken and fish, because if they willing paid for it they could have both, just like if someone willingly pays for both licenses i see no reason why they too shouldnt be allowed to choose both...

If the BBBoC were refusing to allow two boxers capable of getting BBBoC licenses to box one another on a show that met all BBBoC requirements then I see that a case could be made. HOWEVER, I don't believe anyone has ever wanted to stage such a fight so the argument dies there, besides which, if all those criteria are met why would anyone want to pay extra for any other license rather than just go ahead on a BBBoC licensed show?
Obviously the BBBoC cannot allow their license holders to box people that they do not believe are safe to compete.

[spudder56]

Because being forced to choose IS a restraint of trade, no matter how u look at it, i cant see anyone falling foul of any law by being told to choose between chicken and fish, because if they willing paid for it they could have both, just like if someone willingly pays for both licenses i see no reason why they too shouldnt be allowed to choose both...

If the BBBoC were refusing to allow two boxers capable of getting BBBoC licenses to box one another on a show that met all BBBoC requirements then I see that a case could be made. HOWEVER, I don't believe anyone has ever wanted to stage such a fight so the argument dies there, besides which, if all those criteria are met why would anyone want to pay extra for any other license rather than just go ahead on a BBBoC licensed show?
Obviously the BBBoC cannot allow their license holders to box people that they do not believe are safe to compete.

Exactly lee as I said before MBC are just trying to get boxers who have had licences withdrawn or refused on medical or ability grounds to fight on board shows the idea is ludicrous really

[bripez]

Exactly lee as I said before MBC are just trying to get boxers who have had licences withdrawn or refused on medical or ability grounds to fight on board shows the idea is ludicrous really

Luca has explained in detailed eloquence on this thread the medical procedure and the criteria for granting a licence compared to the BBBofC.

I don't think that they are targeting certain boxers, it is just that those who for whatever reason do not have a BBBofC licence have "nothing to lose" by boxing on an MBC show whereas a BBBofC licence holder will be less willing to upset the Board in case they withdraw their licence and thereby restrict their options.

From allowing some boxers to box on other sanctioning bodies shows but not others ( eg Haye and Chisora) allowing am/pro shows for certain boxers only ( eg Amir Khan) allowing am/pro trainers for certain trainers only (eg Rob Mcraken), sanctioning reality tv boxers (eg Freddie Flintoff), allowing officials to cover novelty fights ( eg Ricky Gervais / Grant Bovey), changing their rules about time between fights ( eg to allow Prizefighter format) the list goes on and on .... I have not even mentioned the debacle last year when every man and his dog knew that a certain promoter was not paying his boxers but the Board denied all knowledge and publicly refused to do anything about it.

It appears that the Board make it up as they go along and change their own rules as and when it suits them and their powerful friends.

One thing is for sure, the current situation will not change unless they are forced to change.

I am not saying that the MBC and others is the answer, but if it forces the Board to modernise , become more transparent and accountable to their members and make changes that the boxers and fans want then surely that can only be a good thing?

[leejonesjnr]

Haye and Chisora were not BBBoC licensed when they boxed one another.
Khan has boxed amateur and then pro, what issue do you have with his career? I assume that you are talking about the Kindelan fight in Bolton? Just an amateur show that was televised?

What changes would you like to see?

[meahdem]

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?

i was on a flight back in january and stewardess asks me would you like chicken, fish or tofu, i said fish please, she says sorry we have no fish, so i says ok i'll have chicken then and she says sorry we have no chicken, i says ok tofu it is which she gives me, she then asks the woman sat next to me would you like chicken, fish or tofu. the woman sat next to me with a quizzical look says fish, the stewardess says sorry we have no fish, the woman says er chicken, stewardess sorry no chicken, woman er ok tofu. she then looks at the woman's husband and with a fake smile says would you like chicken, fish or tofu, husband smiles back and says tofu please. stewardess fake smile hands man his tofu. man his wife and me giggling like school kids, stewardess then goes through this whole process again with people sat behind us. as for the bbb of c mbc situation i dont know out. but man tofu is nasty.

[jonp]

Exactly lee as I said before MBC are just trying to get boxers who have had licences withdrawn or refused on medical or ability grounds to fight on board shows the idea is ludicrous really

Luca has explained in detailed eloquence on this thread the medical procedure and the criteria for granting a licence compared to the BBBofC.

I don't think that they are targeting certain boxers, it is just that those who for whatever reason do not have a BBBofC licence have "nothing to lose" by boxing on an MBC show whereas a BBBofC licence holder will be less willing to upset the Board in case they withdraw their licence and thereby restrict their options.

From allowing some boxers to box on other sanctioning bodies shows but not others ( eg Haye and Chisora) allowing am/pro shows for certain boxers only ( eg Amir Khan) allowing am/pro trainers for certain trainers only (eg Rob Mcraken), sanctioning reality tv boxers (eg Freddie Flintoff), allowing officials to cover novelty fights ( eg Ricky Gervais / Grant Bovey), changing their rules about time between fights ( eg to allow Prizefighter format) the list goes on and on .... I have not even mentioned the debacle last year when every man and his dog knew that a certain promoter was not paying his boxers but the Board denied all knowledge and publicly refused to do anything about it.

It appears that the Board make it up as they go along and change their own rules as and when it suits them and their powerful friends.

One thing is for sure, the current situation will not change unless they are forced to change.

I am not saying that the MBC and others is the answer, but if it forces the Board to modernise , become more transparent and accountable to their members and make changes that the boxers and fans want then surely that can only be a good thing?

To be fair here you have got a few points wrong the board did allow pro am shows as we did two in birmingham before the khan show and they went down very well it was the amatuer association that stopped this and the board had no problem with pro am trainers and still havnt again it was the amatuer assocation that banned this not the board.
A lot of problems or misunderstandings happen when people quote things as facts that are actualy the exact opposite surely if you are going to give reasons why something is wrong you should check first that its not actualy the oppsite of what you are saying?

[DazDiCanio]

Expe, you are an absolute idiot. I am interested to know just what your involvement/support is in Boxing, or are you just an obvious internet know all who assumes he has all the answers to something he has no involvement in?

Luca, well done coming on here and putting a professional view across. Good luck to you and your team.

[JamieM]

Bbbofc work for the fighters, politics are rife within the board, without tv backing it's very h likely due to financial reasons that you will fight for that Lonsdale belt, some fighters land lucky in a division that is dead and no intrest but majority is dictated by the big two promotors, I can't understand why a sanctioning body can dictate to fighters fighting kickboxing and pro boxing at same time and restricting there financial ability, they are preventing further income, not every fighter is gonna make it to big bucks in pro boxing and they need to make money and fighting is how they want to do it, as long as they are paying there fees and Medicals then it's absolutely nothing to do with them, get with the times and stop breaking employment laws basically, if you can sanction some of the fights that they sanction for example someone to fight with 16 wins against someone with say 100 losses then that's alot more dangerous than allowing a world champion kickboxer to fight in another discipline, don't pretend to have morals

[mainman1]

I've just seen that scot allen is boxing on one of these shows lol i watched him twice and he was garbage. his own fans were laughing and sayin he got beat in his last one. i just wonder if that means we will see the superstar that is ronnie shark clark disappear to the malta boxing comission. jamiem having his little say above makes me think that could be the case. malta boxing comission scotland where ex kick boxing champions can become malta boxing champions lol

[JamieM]

Well your totally wrong on that one!! Awkward

[David McAllister]

I really don't know enough about the MBC to properly comment but imo until it is clear that you will be able to fight on BBBoC shows/ against BBBoC boxers or compete for The Lonsdale Belt/ Commonwealth Belt/ Euro Belts and WBA/WBC/WBO/IBF Titles, I don't understand why any up and coming boxers would sign for this Commission.

It is only my opinion and I'm sure Luca will come tell me it's wrong but can he tell me with conviction that any of his boxers can compete for the titles above? Let me see proof of this and/or let me know when one of his boxers will be able to compete for one of these titles.

It's all well and good for him to say wait until they try stop a boxer but how long will the boxers career be in limbo?? Answer that Luca?? Before you ask boxers to put the chance to win these titles on hold whilst you try get the courts to force the BBBoC to allow your boxers to box on these shows why don't you give them the answers to these questions:

1. What will the timescale for going to court be?
2. How long will it take if you win for any appeals etc to go through?
3. How many forms of appeal would the BBBoC have?
4 . Give the boxers a realistic timeframe from when they sign for MBC before they will actually get the chance to fulfil their boxing goals by fighting for the Lonsdale belt etc

If you really wanted this to happen then wouldn't it make sense to ask a boxer at the end of their career to be the one who goes through the Guinea Pig stage so at least they have nothing to lose? Also if you so much boxers registered then why don't one of them step up to be the face of this case?

If you can get this passed then I would see no problems with having someone challenging the BBBoC but until all of the questions above can be answered with proof I will continue to advise my boxers to stay licensed to the BBBoC.

[dw01]

Been off as I had my own show to organise last weekend so just trying to catch up a little on this.

Firstly, I'm nothing to do with the MBC. Granted, I have contemplated, and enquired, about working with them. I concentrate mainly on high-level kickboxing first and foremost, but also run boxing events, as well as boxing on my undercards. All of which meet the regulations of the chosen sanctioning bodies I use.

Secondly, has it yet been established under what rule the BBBoC don't permit boxers to fight on mbc events?

To me, it's all becoming very obvious that this is about 'control'. Control over licenses, and control over UK professional boxing. Or else how can it be justified for example, a BBBoC boxer could fight on an mbc or a Luxembourg licence in another country, yet problems arise from the BBBoC when those organisations come to the UK.


If somebody could actually answer the above two points instead of skirting around them, it would be appreciated.

Ps if I've missed a post where it's been answered I apologise but I couldn't see.

[leejonesjnr]

dw01 - High Level kickboxing? Would you mind telling me what promotions you have put on?
I don't think there is any doubt that the BBBoC is about control of professional boxing - the clue is in the name.
All legit governing bodies are about control and ensuring safety and regulations are met, BBBoC over boxing, the FIA over motor racing etc. That is no bad thing.
What boxing events do you run? Is that pro or the unlicensed scene that seems to be ever more popular?

[gobbles]

Been off as I had my own show to organise last weekend so just trying to catch up a little on this.

Firstly, I'm nothing to do with the MBC. Granted, I have contemplated, and enquired, about working with them. I concentrate mainly on high-level kickboxing first and foremost, but also run boxing events, as well as boxing on my undercards. All of which meet the regulations of the chosen sanctioning bodies I use.

Secondly, has it yet been established under what rule the BBBoC don't permit boxers to fight on mbc events?

To me, it's all becoming very obvious that this is about 'control'. Control over licenses, and control over UK professional boxing. Or else how can it be justified for example, a BBBoC boxer could fight on an mbc or a Luxembourg licence in another country, yet problems arise from the BBBoC when those organisations come to the UK.


If somebody could actually answer the above two points instead of skirting around them, it would be appreciated.

Ps if I've missed a post where it's been answered I apologise but I couldn't see.

Surely a licensed boxer can only box abroad with the permission of the BBBoC. This presumably is a safety thing. There were cases in America of boxers boxing in different states under different names and licences, thus avoiding suspensions if they got stopped or hurt. So the same situation would be that a boxer would need to inform the licence provider if they were boxing and seek approval.
Obviously the BBBoC also has to approve bouts to ensure they are safe, so you can understand them being upset if BBBoC licensed boxers faced opponents who had been banned on medical/quality grounds.

[David McAllister]

Been off as I had my own show to organise last weekend so just trying to catch up a little on this.

Firstly, I'm nothing to do with the MBC. Granted, I have contemplated, and enquired, about working with them. I concentrate mainly on high-level kickboxing first and foremost, but also run boxing events, as well as boxing on my undercards. All of which meet the regulations of the chosen sanctioning bodies I use.

Secondly, has it yet been established under what rule the BBBoC don't permit boxers to fight on mbc events?

To me, it's all becoming very obvious that this is about 'control'. Control over licenses, and control over UK professional boxing. Or else how can it be justified for example, a BBBoC boxer could fight on an mbc or a Luxembourg licence in another country, yet problems arise from the BBBoC when those organisations come to the UK.


If somebody could actually answer the above two points instead of skirting around them, it would be appreciated.

Ps if I've missed a post where it's been answered I apologise but I couldn't see.

At the end of the day as I have said once the court case has been done then it would be up to the boxer himself to decide what sanctioning body he goes with but to try sell something that can hamper a boxers career at the minute is totally wrong imo.

It isn't just the BBBoC that can stop people doing other sports with other sanctioning bodies!! Look at Football, my son's friend when he was 11 got signed to Aberdeen Football Club. Once he decided to sign for Aberdeen he could no longer play for his school team or any other team but only Aberdeen. He was only 11 and they were doing that to him.

At the end of the day if a boxer with a BBBoC license goes to Malta or Luxemburg to fight then their governing body makes the decision wether to allow the BBBoC boxer to box on their shows but if they wanted to they could also deny that boxer because it would be up to them!!

Like I have stated earlier i have no problems with the MBC but I would rather they took this to court and got everything they claim passed before trying to tell boxers that everything will be ok without knowing the real consequences and the time scale that the boxer could be in limbo.

If you are planning to have professional boxers would you be happy for them to waste good years of their career trying to get through courts/appeals etc Waiting for them to be allowed to box for titles? Would you really like to see other fighters winning the Lonsdale belt etc when you know your boxer could beat that champion?

I personally wouldn't want to take the risk with any of the boxers I trained until the court case was sorted but everyone has their own opinion.

[maley1984]

I've just seen that scot allen is boxing on one of these shows lol i watched him twice and he was garbage. his own fans were laughing and sayin he got beat in his last one. i just wonder if that means we will see the superstar that is ronnie shark clark disappear to the malta boxing comission. jamiem having his little say above makes me think that could be the case. malta boxing comission scotland where ex kick boxing champions can become malta boxing champions lol

It was on their Facebook page ronnie had signed yesterday

[Wake up call]

Ok let's make this as simple as possible because some people just do not get it.

THE FACTS

The Maltese Commission is not breaking any laws

British boxing is completely unregulated, therefore ANYONE can launch their own commission.

The BBBofC is not a regulator as it often claims because it is not a statutory body, it is entirely self-appointed.

The MBC exists under the same basis that the so-called "unlicensed" bodies do such as EBF etc.

There is actually no such thing as unlicensed as the term merely means non-BBBofC.

BBBofC is a limited company by guarantee, which gives it the same status has most charities.

The BBBofC does not belong to anyone. It has no shareholders and its liabilities are guaranteed by its members (ie license holders).

The MBC is a limited company by share capital. With one shareholder, meaning all profits go to that person.

CASE FOR MBC

Opportunities for boxers refused licences by the BBBofC

Lower fees for tight-fisted promoters

Opportunity for promoters to maximise profits by placing "white collar/so-called semi-pro" boxing on undercards (basically bouncers fighting against each other for couple of hundred if they are lucky. All fighters on ticket only deals).

CASE AGAINST MBC

Questionable medical procedures (despite Luca's attempts to mislead with jargon and half-truths).

Usage of unsuitable venues

Titles that are worthless

Multiple conflicts of interest. Including personal relationship with one female boxer.

Allowance of boxers to fight who are a clear danger to themselves.

Further dilution of boxing, causing confusing to fans.

Commission set up for profit, not for the good of the sport.

Questionable link to Malta. People in Malta dispute that Luca has any connection to the country and is only using its name to try appear like a legitimate national body.

Attempts to tag on to other bodies in order to obtain pseudo-credibility, including the Association of Boxing Commissions, which means absolutely jack shit outside of the US.

Launching of bogus titles using the names of sanctioning bodies which long ceased trading.

Allowance of white collar/ bouncer undercards, with these fighters only having to go through cheap amateur medicals (Luca will claim these are the responsibility of the EBF etc, but he is still allowing this on shows he has sanctioned and carry his branding).

Booted out of EBU after using duplicity to become a member in the first place.

WHY YOU SHOULD SUPPORT THE BBBofC OVER THIS TWO-BIT BODY

Excellent safety record

Long-standing, with a reputation that is recognised by the main governmental statutory bodies.

Accountability.

Non-profit organisation.

Prestigious titles and genuine links to leading European and world bodies.

Used by all leading promoters and boxers.

THE PROBLEM WITH ALLOWING MULTIPLE BODIES

While EU trade laws do not restrict the number of bodies operating within a sport, acceptance of multiple bodies and spurious titles further marginalises boxing as it makes it difficult to follow for fans.

Currently the Lonsdale Belt is the most beautiful and prestigious title in the sport. However, it will be grossly devalued if fans and people involved in boxing accept other "British" titles from other bodies.

Luca has attempted to claim that MBC boxers will be able to box for the Lonsdale belt but that is nonsense. That title is BBBofC sanctioned and MBC boxers are ineligible.

Allowing multiple sanctioning bodies can be a serious threat to safety. If a boxer is permitted to fight for multiple bodies, all of which have their own rules, there would be nothing to stop them getting knocked out and temporarily suspended by one body but ignoring that and boxing a week later for another body.

Boxers could also attempt to circumvent rules by boxing under differing bodies using different names. This has happened with two current BBBofC pros who fought each other on a "unlicensed" show under assumed names, despite them being at completely different weights.

The bottom line is that an acceptance of multiple bodies means more bogus titles, more average/poor fighters being able to call themselves champions, and more confusion when the sport is littered with enough mediocrity already.

If you want to see the way boxing could go in Britain, then look at the farce that is UK kickboxing or UK MMA. Too many titles, too many average "champions" and a general public that refuses to engage with it. There is virtually no money in these sports because most people do not give two hoots about them.

I was recently talking to a manager who had a lad come to his gym and ask how much he could earn if he became a pro boxer. The lad had been an MMA fighter and fought for a European title. The manager said "When you start out at four-round level, you're looking at around £800 to £1200 a fight as an away fighter. Same at home, but you'll be expected to sell tickets and be given an extra commission if you sell over a set amount." The kid replied: "Wow, that's good. I only got £300 for my European title fight".

A dilution of boxing means it loses prestige and in the long term that will push fans away, meaning smaller revenues and less money for the fighters. It is clear to any logical person that too many cooks spoil the broth and multiple bodies are to the detriment of the sport in this country.

[JamieM]

Ronnie hasn't signed anything, his license with the board has expired and like anyone he's spoke but not signed. For me ronnie should stay with the bbbofc , do I disagree with their policies? 100% but he should grind it out as he's fought hard to get in a good position! He has a good group of people around him, he has a good trainer in Davie mcAllister who will advise him and a manager in Tommy who will share his knowledge and his family who all seem to think the exact same as me, that's where we stand at moment , but as Iv said his license is out with the board:)

[maley1984]

Check ronnies Facebook page.

[JamieM]

Just seen it, said this his new journey, nothing is signed, ronnie problem is he thinks it's a resolution, being inactive for him is difficult but a choice like that has to be thought about, he's gonna speak to the relevant people, but trust
Me not clear cut saying he's a kickboxer he signing, he has a family etc and no choice is took lightly :)

[dw01]

I think the main thing about the two licensing bodies is this; as long as the boxers are safe, and the events is properly regulated, then what's the true problem?

"The Londsdale belt is the most prestigious in the sport" - only because it's had no competition. I'm pretty sure the majority of boxers would prefer to win a Prize Fighters title and £32,000 over a Lonsdale belt. But that's my opinion only and not meant to start an argument.

Regarding multiple British titles: We've been told by the MBC they won't issue a British title, so unless we see one, then just take it as their promise.

I don't see this as anything to do with domestic titles, i couldn't really care. Like a thread i started about world bodies and most people said they don't care for the 'big four'. I see this simply as a safety thing, and an alternative to what appears to me, to be a very political organisation in the BBBoC. Why are their expenses so high when the same services (scans, medicals, etc) can be done a lot cheaper?

Somebody asked about which promotions i run - well it doesn't matter. What i meant by "high-level" is that i have fairly high-level fighters on my cards, such as those that have fought on Enfusion, K-1 and Superkombat. I don't think it's relevant to the topic though. And yes, non-BBBoC licenced boxing... 'Unlicensed' is a clever, derogatory term created by the BBBoC to look down on anything outside of their jurisdiction.


A lot of people are stating that the BBBoC has the world's best safety policies & procedures - does that mean that that BBBoC looks down their noses at all other national federations and world bodies as not up to standard? Seems to be this point of view that people are taking when referring to the MBC, who claim to have the same standards. Silly comments like "The board would have never allowed a show to go on in that venue" is just very silly. That may be by 'their' standards, but who is to say that their standards is the bear minimum that 'must' be used? Nobody.

As someone pointed out above, combat sports in the UK is 'self-regulated'. The BBBoC is a private entity, not a legal body. Why not just give others a crack at the whip and in the end, time will tell.


AGAIN, NOBODY has answered under what rules does the BBBoC use to not allow their boxers to compete on MBC UK shows?

ALSO, does anybody know why the Luxembourg Federation and MBC are no longer in the EBU? Under what grounds was that? (sorry if i've went off topic with that).

[dw01]

The BBBofC does not belong to anyone. It has no shareholders and its liabilities are guaranteed by its members (ie license holders).


Does the licence holders get a say in who runs the BBBoC, and who the actual Board members are?

Who voted these people in?

Mr. Charles Giles
Mr. John Rees QC
Mr. John Williamson MBE
Mr. Robert W. Smith

There's been rumours that the BBBoC is owned by its licence holders, but do they actually have a say?

[spudder56]

The BBBofC does not belong to anyone. It has no shareholders and its liabilities are guaranteed by its members (ie license holders).


Does the licence holders get a say in who runs the BBBoC, and who the actual Board members are?

Who voted these people in?

Mr. Charles Giles
Mr. John Rees QC
Mr. John Williamson MBE
Mr. Robert W. Smith

There's been rumours that the BBBoC is owned by its licence holders, but do they actually have a say?

Robert smith is a full time employee of the board so wouldn't be voted in he is the general secretary

[Looking On]

The BBBofC does not belong to anyone. It has no shareholders and its liabilities are guaranteed by its members (ie license holders).


Does the licence holders get a say in who runs the BBBoC, and who the actual Board members are?

Who voted these people in?

Mr. Charles Giles
Mr. John Rees QC
Mr. John Williamson MBE
Mr. Robert W. Smith

There's been rumours that the BBBoC is owned by its licence holders, but do they actually have a say?

a big fat NO is the answer there, no say at all, that is where the problem lies, because the people telling the boxers what they can do, are effectively being paid their salary by the license holders, so how do they then have the power to dictate to boxers about MBC, its ludicrous really.