Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE
-
Frostieballs
- Super Bantamweight
- Posts: 1995
- Joined: 15 Aug 2020, 17:38
Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE
Come on then … let’s have it out in the open! Who are we all?
Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE
I'm Spartacus!Frostieballs wrote: ↑11 Apr 2026, 08:36 Come on then … let’s have it out in the open! Who are we all?
-
SeanBrennan
- Bantamweight
- Posts: 9630
- Joined: 12 Feb 2022, 12:45
Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE
I’m Sean. I think…
-
SeanBrennan
- Bantamweight
- Posts: 9630
- Joined: 12 Feb 2022, 12:45
Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE
I’ve got a hunch you’re called Brian. Brian Spartacus!brian1982 wrote: ↑11 Apr 2026, 10:10I'm Spartacus!Frostieballs wrote: ↑11 Apr 2026, 08:36 Come on then … let’s have it out in the open! Who are we all?
-
johnmanchester
- Light Flyweight
- Posts: 245
- Joined: 12 May 2025, 04:36
Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE
According to Caseboard, the legal firm Russells is no longer representing Boxxer. The listed representative is now London Litigation Partnership.
Russells is a high power, very expensive outfit with a department specialising in sports, entertainment etc.
London Litigation Partnership appears to be... less heavyweight, let's say. There's only one solicitor listed on the LLP website.
The solicitor does offer "no win, no fee" arrangements though. Might be a good deal. Certainly should be less £££ than Russells.
Russells is a high power, very expensive outfit with a department specialising in sports, entertainment etc.
London Litigation Partnership appears to be... less heavyweight, let's say. There's only one solicitor listed on the LLP website.
The solicitor does offer "no win, no fee" arrangements though. Might be a good deal. Certainly should be less £££ than Russells.
Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE
I am informed you are very accurate withjohnmanchester wrote: ↑15 Apr 2026, 12:08 According to Caseboard, the legal firm Russells is no longer representing Boxxer. The listed representative is now London Litigation Partnership.
Russells is a high power, very expensive outfit with a department specialising in sports, entertainment etc.
London Litigation Partnership appears to be... less heavyweight, let's say. There's only one solicitor listed on the LLP website. B
The solicitor does offer "no win no fee" arrangements though. Might be a good deal. Certainly should be less £££ than Russells.
Your information.
I am also told this STOPs the tactics
Of intentionally causing delays so one side
Runs out of money
.
-
johnmanchester
- Light Flyweight
- Posts: 245
- Joined: 12 May 2025, 04:36
Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE
Yeah I mean the info is right there on Caseboards - https://caseboard.io/cases/7fbb60ee-7b0 ... 333e3abb10Spud MK2 wrote: ↑15 Apr 2026, 12:22I am informed you are very accurate withjohnmanchester wrote: ↑15 Apr 2026, 12:08 According to Caseboard, the legal firm Russells is no longer representing Boxxer. The listed representative is now London Litigation Partnership.
Russells is a high power, very expensive outfit with a department specialising in sports, entertainment etc.
London Litigation Partnership appears to be... less heavyweight, let's say. There's only one solicitor listed on the LLP website. B
The solicitor does offer "no win no fee" arrangements though. Might be a good deal. Certainly should be less £££ than Russells.
Your information.
I am also told this STOPs the tactics
Of intentionally causing delays so one side
Runs out of money
.
And then from there obviously just Google who / what LLP is
Might be a canny tactical switch, if Russells have done the heavy lifting.
I don't see how it would stop other parties delaying anything though.
Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE
What on earth does this mean?
-
johnmanchester
- Light Flyweight
- Posts: 245
- Joined: 12 May 2025, 04:36
-
Ruthless-RKO
- Welterweight
- Posts: 100691
- Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59
Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE
He’s on about his own post.johnmanchester wrote: ↑15 Apr 2026, 14:36I have no idea what you are confused about. What are you referring to? I've looked at my previous post and it all seems perfectly clear. Which bit are you not getting?
He doesn’t understand it
-
golden_labrador
- Super Bantamweight
- Posts: 1752
- Joined: 25 Dec 2020, 18:18
Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE
I love dipping in and out of this thread from time to time. surreal comedy
-
Boxerbeetle
- Light Heavyweight
- Posts: 32660
- Joined: 19 Sep 2011, 10:59
Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE
Shame they are setup as a limited company rather than a limited liability partnership. A terrible missed opportunity to be abbreviated to ‘LLP LLP’.johnmanchester wrote: ↑15 Apr 2026, 12:08 According to Caseboard, the legal firm Russells is no longer representing Boxxer. The listed representative is now London Litigation Partnership.
Russells is a high power, very expensive outfit with a department specialising in sports, entertainment etc.
London Litigation Partnership appears to be... less heavyweight, let's say. There's only one solicitor listed on the LLP website.
The solicitor does offer "no win, no fee" arrangements though. Might be a good deal. Certainly should be less £££ than Russells.
-
johnmanchester
- Light Flyweight
- Posts: 245
- Joined: 12 May 2025, 04:36
Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE
Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑15 Apr 2026, 18:16Shame they are setup as a limited company rather than a limited liability partnership. A terrible missed opportunity to be abbreviated to ‘LLP LLP’.johnmanchester wrote: ↑15 Apr 2026, 12:08 According to Caseboard, the legal firm Russells is no longer representing Boxxer. The listed representative is now London Litigation Partnership.
Russells is a high power, very expensive outfit with a department specialising in sports, entertainment etc.
London Litigation Partnership appears to be... less heavyweight, let's say. There's only one solicitor listed on the LLP website.
The solicitor does offer "no win, no fee" arrangements though. Might be a good deal. Certainly should be less £££ than Russells.
Surreal is the word. Some of the interactions have me feeling like I've accidentally eaten a bag of acidgolden_labrador wrote: ↑15 Apr 2026, 17:49 I love dipping in and out of this thread from time to time. surreal comedy
-
golden_labrador
- Super Bantamweight
- Posts: 1752
- Joined: 25 Dec 2020, 18:18
Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE
johnmanchester wrote: ↑16 Apr 2026, 04:03Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑15 Apr 2026, 18:16Shame they are setup as a limited company rather than a limited liability partnership. A terrible missed opportunity to be abbreviated to ‘LLP LLP’.johnmanchester wrote: ↑15 Apr 2026, 12:08 According to Caseboard, the legal firm Russells is no longer representing Boxxer. The listed representative is now London Litigation Partnership.
Russells is a high power, very expensive outfit with a department specialising in sports, entertainment etc.
London Litigation Partnership appears to be... less heavyweight, let's say. There's only one solicitor listed on the LLP website.
The solicitor does offer "no win, no fee" arrangements though. Might be a good deal. Certainly should be less £££ than Russells.
Surreal is the word. Some of the interactions have me feeling like I've accidentally eaten a bag of acidgolden_labrador wrote: ↑15 Apr 2026, 17:49 I love dipping in and out of this thread from time to time. surreal comedy
-
SeanBrennan
- Bantamweight
- Posts: 9630
- Joined: 12 Feb 2022, 12:45
Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE
Imagine the mic drop moment if it turns out Spud is John Manchester
-
golden_labrador
- Super Bantamweight
- Posts: 1752
- Joined: 25 Dec 2020, 18:18
Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE
shhh...no spoilersSeanBrennan wrote: ↑16 Apr 2026, 14:18 Imagine the mic drop moment if it turns out Spud is John Manchester
-
My T Sharp
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1931
- Joined: 16 May 2004, 13:32
Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE
Isn’t the fella being sued called John
Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE
After reading the following paragraph taken from the court papers its very hard not to think Shalom has got the case by the knackers

When you read the above wichussen makes a clear and unquovocal admission of that he has done wrong and worst still he admits to destroying some of the evidence.
The question has to be what role did Wassund, Sky Boxing (Selmes & Robinson, in the the booking of venues, approaching boxer's, phone calls, signing and allegedly
Making signings. If they took a management stance
Questions have to asked:
Did sky boxing breach competition rules
By accepting whichussen as their promoter.
It makes sense why whichussen opened up Blue wolf sports group on 5 August.
But, prior to a temporary injunction being granted against Wichusen on 19 Sep, his assistant director Wassund opened a company on 15 sep.
If either company complted work after 19 sep was there a breach or breaches of the injunction

When you read the above wichussen makes a clear and unquovocal admission of that he has done wrong and worst still he admits to destroying some of the evidence.
The question has to be what role did Wassund, Sky Boxing (Selmes & Robinson, in the the booking of venues, approaching boxer's, phone calls, signing and allegedly
Making signings. If they took a management stance
Questions have to asked:
Did sky boxing breach competition rules
By accepting whichussen as their promoter.
It makes sense why whichussen opened up Blue wolf sports group on 5 August.
But, prior to a temporary injunction being granted against Wichusen on 19 Sep, his assistant director Wassund opened a company on 15 sep.
If either company complted work after 19 sep was there a breach or breaches of the injunction
Last edited by Spud MK2 on 17 Apr 2026, 20:41, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE
Another question what are the chances of sky dumping
On wichussem to save their reputation
On wichussem to save their reputation
-
johnmanchester
- Light Flyweight
- Posts: 245
- Joined: 12 May 2025, 04:36
Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE
In the image you've posted, where you say it's a clear admission of guilt by Wischusen, the quoted text has Wischusen saying he's done nothing dishonest.Spud MK2 wrote: ↑17 Apr 2026, 19:03 After reading the following paragraph taken from the court papers its very hard not to think Shalom has got the case by the knackers
When you read the above wichussen makes a clear and unquovocal admission of that he has done wrong and worst still he admits to destroying some of the evidence.
The question has to be what role did Wassund, Sky Boxing (Selmes & Robinson, in the the booking of venues, approaching boxer's, phone calls, signing and allegedly
Making signings. If they took a management stance
Questions have to asked:
Did sky boxing breach competition rules
By accepting whichussen as their promoter.
It makes sense why whichussen opened up Blue wolf sports group on 5 August.
But, prior to a temporary injunction being granted against Wichusen on 19 Sep, his assistant director Wassund opened a company on 15 sep.
If either company complted work after 19 sep was there a breach or breaches of the injunction
I'm not sure saying "I haven't done anything wrong" counts as a "clear admission of guilt"?
As to the rest of it, I am not sure why Boxxer seem to feel Sky was obliged to renew them.
I can only imagine this case stems on some technicality where there was some sort of "exclusive renegotiation period" in the contract
But then Sky will surely be able to pull out instances in the past where boxxer was either told it wasn't being renewed, and /or was in breach of contract.
Maybe they're alleging some sort of tortious interference with contract as well.
I feel like Boxxer case must hinge entirely on boxxer assuming they would be renewed by default and that Sky had no right not to renew them.
So if Sky is able to pull out evidence that it considered boxxer to be garbage /non renewable /problematic from X date, that should put paid to that.
But we'll have to wait and see.
Have you seen the contracts and evidence bundles Spud? Have you read the particulars of claim? What's your opinion based on all that inside info the public hasn't seen?
-
johnmanchester
- Light Flyweight
- Posts: 245
- Joined: 12 May 2025, 04:36
Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE
"save their reputation"
Nobody is paying any attention to this tiny little court case in a tiny little fringe sport.
Sky will be alright lol, I wouldn't worry about Sky.
Maybe you could channel your energies into helping boxxer find a new TV home after bbc?
Expect a standalone Azim event in May but beyond that I don't think the bbc are renewing the 4-event deal boxxer got.
You could be the lynchpin in finding a new deal and get a finders fee and maybe a job title! Really be in the game. Real player.
Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE
John Manchester,
Please tell me why the on earth do you and others shoot your load at the legal team at sky .. the are not beyond reproach❓❓
Please tell me why the on earth do you and others shoot your load at the legal team at sky .. the are not beyond reproach❓❓
-
Ruthless-RKO
- Welterweight
- Posts: 100691
- Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59
Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE
These kinda threads just feel like legal dramas 
-
johnmanchester
- Light Flyweight
- Posts: 245
- Joined: 12 May 2025, 04:36
Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE
😉
After the court case has finished i will tell you something that will make you p*ss yourself with laughter.
After the court case has finished i will tell you something that will make you p*ss yourself with laughter.