MALTA BOXING COMMISSION - UK, SCOTLAND & IRELAND SANCTIONING

[leejonesjnr]

Youve used one of the silly comparisions again, the bar has the right to sell to who it wants yes, because they are refusing a sale, the only trade they are restraining is their own. BBBoC arent doing that, they are stating who can work where.
Your examples make no sense at all and dont compare.

Probably best for you to vote with your feet and only box on MBC shows.
If you are in the right I dare say that the vast majority of license holders will follow you.
I will feel pretty foolish when I am the last BBBoC license holder in the country. On the bright side, I will be handed the Lonsdale belt by default which will be a treat for someone of my lowly skill level.

Cant even do sarcasm properly either i see...
At no point have i said anyone should only box mbc, im saying they should actually be with BBBoC, i just dont think they should be allowed to prevent people boxing on MBC shows.
I guess the low skills you speak of are also matched with a low brain cell count too.

Perhaps so. Only an idiot would want to box after all.
Thank goodness I was born lucky and things seem to be going okay.
Nobody is prevented from boxing on MBC shows, they make whichever choice they wish.

[dw01]

I don't think that the BBBoC are breaking trade laws as simply put, boxers can still fight elsewhere.

What they have done is break their own own policies.

The BBBoC are supposed to recognise other licensing bodies that are members of the EBU. Luxembourg were members - yet, why did they get kicked out of the EBU? Was it because the BBBoC reps is either a founding, or senior member of the EBU and they didn't like the face that the Lux Federation sanctioned the Haye-Chisora bout and their noses were put out? Or was it something else?

Again, if the WBC/WBA/IBF/WBO/WBO-Europe and the ABC all recognise the MBC, then why don't the BBBoC?


Someone 'prove' the MBC is not a safe organisation and I will accept it. But you can't waffle on about unlicensed/semi-pro/white collar undercard bouts that weren't sanctioned by the MBC and use that asproof. Neither can you say they licence medically unfit boxers. Look at the evidence, and consider it, in the instance where this was thought to be the case. In short- BBBoC refuses a licence. At a later date the MBC has written testimony from several neuro specialists to give clearance. But Joe Bloggs the forum writer seems to know better???

[dw01]

Nobody is prevented from boxing on MBC shows, they make whichever choice they wish.

But at the risk of the BBBoC licence?

[leejonesjnr]

I don't think that the BBBoC are breaking trade laws as simply put, boxers can still fight elsewhere.

What they have done is break their own own policies.

The BBBoC are supposed to recognise other licensing bodies that are members of the EBU. Luxembourg were members - yet, why did they get kicked out of the EBU? Was it because the BBBoC reps is either a founding, or senior member of the EBU and they didn't like the face that the Lux Federation sanctioned the Haye-Chisora bout and their noses were put out? Or was it something else?

Again, if the WBC/WBA/IBF/WBO/WBO-Europe and the ABC all recognise the BBBoC, then why don't the BBBoC?


Someone 'prove' the MBC is not a safe organisation and I will accept it. But you can't waffle on about unlicensed/semi-pro/white collar undercard bouts that weren't sanctioned by the MBC and use that asproof. Neither can you say they licence medically unfit boxers. Look at the evidence, and consider it, in the instance where this was thought to be the case. In short- BBBoC refuses a licence. At a later date the MBC has written testimony from several neuro specialists to give clearance. But Joe Bloggs the forum writer seems to know better???

I sincerely hope that it is never PROVED that MBC shows are not safe, as there is only really one way to do that.
It does seem that there are interesting times ahead. Several BBBoC licensed boxers are scheduled to appear on MBC shows in the coming months as well as another GBA show taking place at York Hall at the end of this month.

Really I suppose it depends if MBC/GBA/Someone else has the money, time and inclination to persist with a legal challenge and see what the courts have to say. Most recently Bruce Baker was unsuccessful in a similar case, but who knows what might happen?
If it does transpire that the BBBoC must allow boxers to compete outside of BBBoC shows in the UK, where is the line drawn? Just MBC? MBC and GBA? Also all the unlicensed organisations? Kickboxing and MMA?

[leejonesjnr]

Nobody is prevented from boxing on MBC shows, they make whichever choice they wish.

But at the risk of the BBBoC licence?

It is made very clear to all applicants what the terms of a BBBoC license being issued are. By boxing without the consent of the BBBoC a license holder is not risking their license, they are relinquishing it. If a boxer doesn't agree to the BBBoC terms and conditions then they don't have to take out a license.

[Looking On]

I don't think that the BBBoC are breaking trade laws as simply put, boxers can still fight elsewhere.

What they have done is break their own own policies.

The BBBoC are supposed to recognise other licensing bodies that are members of the EBU. Luxembourg were members - yet, why did they get kicked out of the EBU? Was it because the BBBoC reps is either a founding, or senior member of the EBU and they didn't like the face that the Lux Federation sanctioned the Haye-Chisora bout and their noses were put out? Or was it something else?

Again, if the WBC/WBA/IBF/WBO/WBO-Europe and the ABC all recognise the BBBoC, then why don't the BBBoC?


Someone 'prove' the MBC is not a safe organisation and I will accept it. But you can't waffle on about unlicensed/semi-pro/white collar undercard bouts that weren't sanctioned by the MBC and use that asproof. Neither can you say they licence medically unfit boxers. Look at the evidence, and consider it, in the instance where this was thought to be the case. In short- BBBoC refuses a licence. At a later date the MBC has written testimony from several neuro specialists to give clearance. But Joe Bloggs the forum writer seems to know better???

I sincerely hope that it is never PROVED that MBC shows are not safe, as there is only really one way to do that.
It does seem that there are interesting times ahead. Several BBBoC licensed boxers are scheduled to appear on MBC shows in the coming months as well as another GBA show taking place at York Hall at the end of this month.

Really I suppose it depends if MBC/GBA/Someone else has the money, time and inclination to persist with a legal challenge and see what the courts have to say. Most recently Bruce Baker was unsuccessful in a similar case, but who knows what might happen?
If it does transpire that the BBBoC must allow boxers to compete outside of BBBoC shows in the UK, where is the line drawn? Just MBC? MBC and GBA? Also all the unlicensed organisations? Kickboxing and MMA?

I understand the point, obviously a line would have to be drawn somewhere, one way ive previously thought of, that was more to do with unlicensed but can be altered to this to ensure it would work, is for councils to only be allowed to approve a license for a venue to host boxing if certain insurance certificates were in posession , which to get the specific level of insurance a brain scan must have taken place along with various other things (hiv / hep tests etc) that way it prevents unlicensed shows having pros on the shows, and draws a clear line as to what is professional boxing and what isnt

[leejonesjnr]

I don't think that the BBBoC are breaking trade laws as simply put, boxers can still fight elsewhere.

What they have done is break their own own policies.

The BBBoC are supposed to recognise other licensing bodies that are members of the EBU. Luxembourg were members - yet, why did they get kicked out of the EBU? Was it because the BBBoC reps is either a founding, or senior member of the EBU and they didn't like the face that the Lux Federation sanctioned the Haye-Chisora bout and their noses were put out? Or was it something else?

Again, if the WBC/WBA/IBF/WBO/WBO-Europe and the ABC all recognise the BBBoC, then why don't the BBBoC?


Someone 'prove' the MBC is not a safe organisation and I will accept it. But you can't waffle on about unlicensed/semi-pro/white collar undercard bouts that weren't sanctioned by the MBC and use that asproof. Neither can you say they licence medically unfit boxers. Look at the evidence, and consider it, in the instance where this was thought to be the case. In short- BBBoC refuses a licence. At a later date the MBC has written testimony from several neuro specialists to give clearance. But Joe Bloggs the forum writer seems to know better???

I sincerely hope that it is never PROVED that MBC shows are not safe, as there is only really one way to do that.
It does seem that there are interesting times ahead. Several BBBoC licensed boxers are scheduled to appear on MBC shows in the coming months as well as another GBA show taking place at York Hall at the end of this month.

Really I suppose it depends if MBC/GBA/Someone else has the money, time and inclination to persist with a legal challenge and see what the courts have to say. Most recently Bruce Baker was unsuccessful in a similar case, but who knows what might happen?
If it does transpire that the BBBoC must allow boxers to compete outside of BBBoC shows in the UK, where is the line drawn? Just MBC? MBC and GBA? Also all the unlicensed organisations? Kickboxing and MMA?

I understand the point, obviously a line would have to be drawn somewhere, one way ive previously thought of, that was more to do with unlicensed but can be altered to this to ensure it would work, is for councils to only be allowed to approve a license for a venue to host boxing if certain insurance certificates were in posession , which to get the specific level of insurance a brain scan must have taken place along with various other things (hiv / hep tests etc) that way it prevents unlicensed shows having pros on the shows, and draws a clear line as to what is professional boxing and what isnt

What do you propose is done with regards competitors who are unable to get a BBBoC license but can get a license elsewhere? Would they be allowed to box on BBBoC shows? If not then are they able to box opponents who do hold a BBBoC license? If the answer to either of these is no then is the supposed restraint of trade not still applicable anyway rendering the whole thing pointless?

[Looking On]

cant call failing a medical a restraint of trade, thats totally different.
If someone fails a medical then thats their perogative to refuse them, just means they wouldnt be allowed to box on a bbboc show as their insurance wouldnt cover them.
on an mbc show, where they have been licensed they would be covered by their insurance as they will have satisfied their medical requirements, therefore no reason why a bbboc licensed boxer couldnt box someone who failed a license, but on an mbc show, fully covered by insurance still.

although in fairness im no expert on insurance issues etc so i can only speculate, i cant give a fact that it would work that way

[leejonesjnr]

cant call failing a medical a restraint of trade, thats totally different.
If someone fails a medical then thats their perogative to refuse them, just means they wouldnt be allowed to box on a bbboc show as their insurance wouldnt cover them.
on an mbc show, where they have been licensed they would be covered by their insurance as they will have satisfied their medical requirements, therefore no reason why a bbboc licensed boxer couldnt box someone who failed a license, but on an mbc show, fully covered by insurance still.

although in fairness im no expert on insurance issues etc so i can only speculate, i cant give a fact that it would work that way

It is the BBBoCs perogative to refuse any boxer competing on a BBBoC show anyway.
It is not a 'right' to hold a BBBoC license anymore than it is a 'right' to be granted membership at The Groucho or similar.
The BBBoC can withdraw any license at any time and are not actually obliged to give reason.

[Looking On]

cant call failing a medical a restraint of trade, thats totally different.
If someone fails a medical then thats their perogative to refuse them, just means they wouldnt be allowed to box on a bbboc show as their insurance wouldnt cover them.
on an mbc show, where they have been licensed they would be covered by their insurance as they will have satisfied their medical requirements, therefore no reason why a bbboc licensed boxer couldnt box someone who failed a license, but on an mbc show, fully covered by insurance still.

although in fairness im no expert on insurance issues etc so i can only speculate, i cant give a fact that it would work that way

It is the BBBoCs perogative to refuse any boxer competing on a BBBoC show anyway.
It is not a 'right' to hold a BBBoC license anymore than it is a 'right' to be granted membership at The Groucho or similar.
The BBBoC can withdraw any license at any time and are not actually obliged to give reason.

It is a right though to be able to carry out your chosen profession within the EU unrestricted as long as your fit to practice as determined by the authority in that field of expertise, choosing to withdraw a license without reason is a restraint of trade, theres no avoiding that. we are just going round in circles here, you support the BBBoC, as do i too, but it doesnt mean i agree with everything they do, which in this case im currently of the view they are acting incorrectly, your welcome to your own opinion, but to me that opinion, like some of what the bbboc do, is out of touch. its all this political nonsense that prevents the sport from growing.
the only way this ever gets fully resolved is if a FIFA type organisation happens in boxing, and we all know that is never going to happen, and as weve seen lately, even that has its flaws.

[leejonesjnr]

cant call failing a medical a restraint of trade, thats totally different.
If someone fails a medical then thats their perogative to refuse them, just means they wouldnt be allowed to box on a bbboc show as their insurance wouldnt cover them.
on an mbc show, where they have been licensed they would be covered by their insurance as they will have satisfied their medical requirements, therefore no reason why a bbboc licensed boxer couldnt box someone who failed a license, but on an mbc show, fully covered by insurance still.

although in fairness im no expert on insurance issues etc so i can only speculate, i cant give a fact that it would work that way

It is the BBBoCs perogative to refuse any boxer competing on a BBBoC show anyway.
It is not a 'right' to hold a BBBoC license anymore than it is a 'right' to be granted membership at The Groucho or similar.
The BBBoC can withdraw any license at any time and are not actually obliged to give reason.

It is a right though to be able to carry out your chosen profession within the EU unrestricted as long as your fit to practice as determined by the authority in that field of expertise, choosing to withdraw a license without reason is a restraint of trade, theres no avoiding that. we are just going round in circles here, you support the BBBoC, as do i too, but it doesnt mean i agree with everything they do, which in this case im currently of the view they are acting incorrectly, your welcome to your own opinion, but to me that opinion, like some of what the bbboc do, is out of touch. its all this political nonsense that prevents the sport from growing.
the only way this ever gets fully resolved is if a FIFA type organisation happens in boxing, and we all know that is never going to happen, and as weve seen lately, even that has its flaws.

There is no restriction of trade. If a boxer wants to box on MBC shows they can. The BBBoC having terms and conditions to membership is not illegal.
Meh, I'm sure I am 'out of touch' in many ways.
The way to resolve it is with a FIFA type situation?
Nope.

[The Insider]

It is made very clear to all applicants what the terms of a BBBoC license being issued are. By boxing without the consent of the BBBoC a license holder is not risking their license, they are relinquishing it. If a boxer doesn't agree to the BBBoC terms and conditions then they don't have to take out a license.

This was the boards original stance when the Haye Chisora Bill was announced yet they had to change their original threat (on the advice of their QC's and legal team I presume???) and the dozens of BbboC license holders who took part in the show did not receive any bans or repercussions whatsoever. Do we know why the Board bottled it? Did they know they couldn't take this line of action? Were they scared of FW?

[dw01]

^ ^

Nicely put.

[dw01]

So basically, if you box on a non-Board show you're agreeing to relinquish your licence?



Does anybody know if the Board issues fighter's licences to oversees boxers when they come to the UK to box on a Board show? Or is it simply just a 'permission' they grant and take the word of the other fighter's national body?

[Alba]

The thing with MBC show s is the seem to be blurring the lunes by also having unlicensed fights in the same ring on the same night (and I know they dont oversee those bouts) but it really is blurring the lines

[leejonesjnr]

It is made very clear to all applicants what the terms of a BBBoC license being issued are. By boxing without the consent of the BBBoC a license holder is not risking their license, they are relinquishing it. If a boxer doesn't agree to the BBBoC terms and conditions then they don't have to take out a license.

This was the boards original stance when the Haye Chisora Bill was announced yet they had to change their original threat (on the advice of their QC's and legal team I presume???) and the dozens of BbboC license holders who took part in the show did not receive any bans or repercussions whatsoever. Do we know why the Board bottled it? Did they know they couldn't take this line of action? Were they scared of FW?

It would be interesting to know the answer to that.
I also thought it was a fascinating turn of events given that FW had essentially 'saved' the BBBoC in the past.

[dw01]

The thing with MBC show s is the seem to be blurring the lunes by also having unlicensed fights in the same ring on the same night (and I know they dont oversee those bouts) but it really is blurring the lines

I think you have hit the nail on the head there, Alba. And it is understandably confusing people who can't seem to grasp that just because they're on the same bill, doesn't make the MBC involved (as such).

Maybe in time, the MBC will grow and support its own 100% MBC licensed, sanctioned events. It would certainly help with adding credibility to them as a whole.

[spudder56]

i see Matt Scriven is due to fight for the MBC Welterweight Title against Siar Ozgul on 2/5/15 at York Hall on the back of losing his last 10 fights and 87 losses in total despite not having made welterweight since 2001 according to his record on boxrec

[Floyd the snake]

Isaac Quaye boxed on 2 MBC in Liverpool yet in between boxed on a BBBC show in Houghton le Spring , how can the board turn down a licence holder from doing the same ?

[leejonesjnr]

Isaac Quaye boxed on 2 MBC in Liverpool yet in between boxed on a BBBC show in Houghton le Spring , how can the board turn down a licence holder from doing the same ?

Isaac Quaye isn't a BBBoC license holder. BBBoC license holders agree not to compete in any combat sport, boxing or otherwise, that the BBBoC do not approve.

Now, with regards the restraint of trade issue that keeps being (incorrectly) brought up, if the BBBoC refused Isaac Quaye or any other foreign boxer permission to box on a BBBoC show because they had boxed on an MBC show then there would be a case to answer. As long as a boxer abides by the regulations of his own license and that license is issued by an authority that the BBBoC recognise then there is no reason issue to address according to the current rules and regulations (though these change).

[bripez]

Isaac Quaye boxed on 2 MBC in Liverpool yet in between boxed on a BBBC show in Houghton le Spring , how can the board turn down a licence holder from doing the same ?

Isaac Quaye isn't a BBBoC license holder. BBBoC license holders agree not to compete in any combat sport, boxing or otherwise, that the BBBoC do not approve.

Now, with regards the restraint of trade issue that keeps being (incorrectly) brought up, if the BBBoC refused Isaac Quaye or any other foreign boxer permission to box on a BBBoC show because they had boxed on an MBC show then there would be a case to answer. As long as a boxer abides by the regulations of his own license and that license is issued by an authority that the BBBoC recognise then there is no reason issue to address according to the current rules and regulations (though these change).

The board have specifically stated that boxers who box on an MBC show will not be allowed to be on one their shows - yet this is clearly happening already.

Do you not think that there is some double standards in their actions?

What if you relinquished your BBBofC licence and joined the Ghana federation - would you be allowed to box on both MBC and BBBofC shows in this country?

Surely you must, as this is happening already.

So, what is the difference between that situation and relinquishing your board licence and joining the MBC - surely you would be allowed to box on both MBC and BBBofC shows? - if not, why not? It doesn't make sense to me.

[leejonesjnr]

Theoretically I suppose so, but I can't imagine anyone capable of getting a BBBoC license trying to get a Ghana license so that they can box on MBC shows.

Now that it appears there will soon be some MBC licensed boxers who can get a BBBoC license perhaps those boxers will be allowed to box on BBBoC shows?

Who knows? It's a much more complicated situation than it first appears. Time will tell.

[bripez]

Theoretically I suppose so, but I can't imagine anyone capable of getting a BBBoC license trying to get a Ghana license so that they can box on MBC shows.

Now that it appears there will soon be some MBC licensed boxers who can get a BBBoC license perhaps those boxers will be allowed to box on BBBoC shows?

Who knows? It's a much more complicated situation than it first appears. Time will tell.

The situation would be that you would get a Ghana licence which would enable you to box on both BBBofC and MBC shows, not just MBC shows.

As a boxer, surely having the option to box on both / either is better than being restricted to one only?

I agree that it is a complicated situation - not helped by the BBBofC who for reasons of self protection (that I understand, if not agree with) appear to be making statements and rule changes that are neither transparent or consistent.

[leejonesjnr]

I'm quite surprised that there seems to be a lot of people on here who want multiple organisations operating in the UK.

Very few boxers want anything other than BBBoC licenses in my experience, including those who hold an MBC license. It wasn't a choice, they couldn't get a BBBoC license so settled for MBC.

[bripez]

I'm quite surprised that there seems to be a lot of people on here who want multiple organisations operating in the UK.

Very few boxers want anything other than BBBoC licenses in my experience, including those who hold an MBC license. It wasn't a choice, they couldn't get a BBBoC license so settled for MBC.

Ok mate, I will ignore the fact that I try to give my opinion on points that you raise and you completely ignore mine and continue in another tangent

I don't think that most people on here necessarily want multiple sanctioning bodies - myself included.

I can only speak for myself, however as a boxing fan i just want to see the best competitive fights - not just the title fights but all the way down the card. I am sure that boxers are the same - they just want to box on a regular basis and test themselves against their peers.

Unfortunately, this is not happening. As the BBBofC are currently the only sanctioning body in the UK what are they doing about it? - they continue to sanction fights that are massively stacked in one boxers favour, not every now and again but in the vast majority of fights.

If the board will not do anything willingly, then if the emergence of the likes of the MBC forces them to look at themselves and to do what is right for the sport then I am all for it.