BoxRec

The Insider wrote:

Wake up call wrote:
The fear is that those fighters will then just go down the Luxembourg route permanently and in the long term this could bring the end of the board.

Which may or may not be a bad thing. This was always going to happen one day. The Board should have pushed to become THE statutory organisation overseeing all pro boxing in the UK.

@ Carey

Was the promoter Pat Brogan?

Wake up call wrote: The fear is that those fighters will then just go down the Luxembourg route permanently and in the long term this could bring the end of the board.

Ben Carey wrote:

The Insider wrote:

Wake up call wrote:
The fear is that those fighters will then just go down the Luxembourg route permanently and in the long term this could bring the end of the board.

Which may or may not be a bad thing. This was always going to happen one day. The Board should have pushed to become THE statutory organisation overseeing all pro boxing in the UK.

@ Carey

Was the promoter Pat Brogan?

Pat Brogan - thank you, that's the one. He was a promoter based in Stoke-on-Trent

Coco wrote:

Wake up call wrote: The fear is that those fighters will then just go down the Luxembourg route permanently and in the long term this could bring the end of the board.

It is a risk they have to take otherwise if they allow this any the authority they have will evaporate. I do not see they have another choice.
If they let this slide they will really be opening a can of worms and will be allowing a complete free for all.
It is only one promoter who is trying to do as he pleases, they must come down hard on him. No other promoter would be allowed not to pay his fighter, such liberties have gone on too long.
I doubt fighters would prefer to go down the Luxenbourg route given the option.

The Insider wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:It will be interesting to see how the BBBoC play this. In my view, they must take a very robust stance and stick to it. If they play it meek, their credibility will be shot to pieces.

X2 on that.

There are already a few things afoot regarding white collar and unlicensed boxing that the board need to deal with aside from this FW debacle. It couldn't have come at a worse time for the board. As I've said in a previous post the Board need to be recognised in parliament the same way as the F.A are for football, so that any unlicensed event not sanctioned by them is effectively illegal. I have no idea how this will play out but can only see it hurting the boards reputation if they fold to FW, or their pockets if they ban/discipline one of their biggest bread winners.

damianhucker1 wrote:

The Insider wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:It will be interesting to see how the BBBoC play this. In my view, they must take a very robust stance and stick to it. If they play it meek, their credibility will be shot to pieces.

X2 on that.

There are already a few things afoot regarding white collar and unlicensed boxing that the board need to deal with aside from this FW debacle. It couldn't have come at a worse time for the board. As I've said in a previous post the Board need to be recognised in parliament the same way as the F.A are for football, so that any unlicensed event not sanctioned by them is effectively illegal. I have no idea how this will play out but can only see it hurting the boards reputation if they fold to FW, or their pockets if they ban/discipline one of their biggest bread winners.

That wouldnt be the case anyway , thats like saying friendly football matches or a kickabout on the park with your mates is illegal

MachoMan09 wrote: Nothing. There never has been. This is not a new thing it's just quite high profile this time round. You know that.

People are attempting to turn a simple rerun act into something far more complex than it is. A practised peddler and his offshoot, the fat one with the retard's grin not the eloquent one with the glazed eyes of a boy who was serially buggered whilst at private school, are pitching a fight between two black thugs - one trained by a smug perma-tanned amateur psychologist, the other by an ageing guttersnipe - on the hackneyed premise an ongoing dispute between the pair should be settled "in the ring" not "on the streets". That neither black thug A nor black thug B holds a license to fight under the auspices of the British Boxing Board of Control sprinkles an extra bit of spice on the spiel, enabling the uninitiated to mistakenly happen upon the conclusion that the absence of board approval makes the event edgy, dangerous and maybe a little bit felonious. Hark back to the late 1970s and you will find that the aforementioned peddler used exactly the same gimmick to get his show on the road in the first place. We're retreading old ground.

Wake up call wrote:

Coco wrote:

Wake up call wrote: The fear is that those fighters will then just go down the Luxembourg route permanently and in the long term this could bring the end of the board.

It is a risk they have to take otherwise if they allow this any the authority they have will evaporate. I do not see they have another choice.
If they let this slide they will really be opening a can of worms and will be allowing a complete free for all.
It is only one promoter who is trying to do as he pleases, they must come down hard on him. No other promoter would be allowed not to pay his fighter, such liberties have gone on too long.
I doubt fighters would prefer to go down the Luxenbourg route given the option.

No defo not. Boxers want to be with the board, but the promoter in question has a scary amount of influence on these often naive young chaps and it only takes a couple more promoters to go down the same route and soon the complexion of boxing in the UK has been changed forever.

Mark my words, Bruce is rubbing his hands together and looking how he can expand the Luxembourg Federation in this country. This fight is the start, it is not a one off.

The Insider wrote:

damianhucker1 wrote:

The Insider wrote: X2 on that.

There are already a few things afoot regarding white collar and unlicensed boxing that the board need to deal with aside from this FW debacle. It couldn't have come at a worse time for the board. As I've said in a previous post the Board need to be recognised in parliament the same way as the F.A are for football, so that any unlicensed event not sanctioned by them is effectively illegal. I have no idea how this will play out but can only see it hurting the boards reputation if they fold to FW, or their pockets if they ban/discipline one of their biggest bread winners.

That wouldnt be the case anyway , thats like saying friendly football matches or a kickabout on the park with your mates is illegal

You seemed to have missed the point fella. Last time i checked the kids playing footie in the park wernt paid proffesionals. The analogy i used was reffering to paid pro footballers wether they Be in the blue square or premier league. The Comparison you make would be comparitable to amateur boxing. Also im pretty sure 22 blokes started kicking off in a field the police wouldn't take to kindly too it. Poor points badly made IMO mate.

damianhucker1 wrote:

The Insider wrote:

damianhucker1 wrote: That wouldnt be the case anyway , thats like saying friendly football matches or a kickabout on the park with your mates is illegal

You seemed to have missed the point fella. Last time i checked the kids playing footie in the park wernt paid proffesionals. The analogy i used wask reffering to paid pro footballers wether they Be in the blue square or premier league. The Comparison you make would be comparitable to amateur boxing. Also im pretty sure 22 blokes started kicking off in a field the police wouldn't take to kindly too it. Poor points badly made IMO mate.

Ive worked in football for quite a while until around 7 years ago , ive never known Jermain Pennant to be arrested for playing in a 5 a side competition at powerleague over the summer , not that he needs any further excuse to be arrested

The Insider wrote:

Wake up call wrote:
Again you completely miss the point. Trust me. I know Bruce Baker behind the Luxembourg board and I know full well how they are set up, how the EBU is set up and how the world bodies work and NOOOONNNNEEEE of them are in existence by any divine right. They are ALL self-appointed bodies. If me and you could get a big fight on we could set up a commission and get all these bodies to sanction it. Sanctioned by made up bodies does not make it legitimate and that especially includes the WBO.

The point is, the BBBofC, Luxembourg, Queensbury BL and that guy that does white collar shows at your local pub are legally all on the same ground and that is that none of them have any more right to sanction fights than any other because unlike in America we do not have statutory bodies in Europe.

We trust the BBBofC because of their long standing relationship with our sport, not because they are an authority with legal ground to exist on. A fly by night organisation coming in to this country to sanction a show is exactly the same as so called unlicensed body (there's actually no such thing as unlicensed - unlicensed in this country means non licensed by the BBBofC) staging one and that's the point here.

Are people too blind to see the threat that this move poses to the future of how boxing is run in this country?

Excellent post.

kingfinn wrote:Its not an excellent post at all he's talking rubbish.

The Insider wrote:

damianhucker1 wrote:

The Insider wrote: You seemed to have missed the point fella. Last time i checked the kids playing footie in the park wernt paid proffesionals. The analogy i used wask reffering to paid pro footballers wether they Be in the blue square or premier league. The Comparison you make would be comparitable to amateur boxing. Also im pretty sure 22 blokes started kicking off in a field the police wouldn't take to kindly too it. Poor points badly made IMO mate.

Ive worked in football for quite a while until around 7 years ago , ive never known Jermain Pennant to be arrested for playing in a 5 a side competition at powerleague over the summer , not that he needs any further excuse to be arrested

I didn't mention anyone getting arrested, footballers, children or boxers. My point was that if the BBBOC were all powerful they could effectively ban "unsanctioned" bouts in the UK.

damianhucker1 wrote:

The Insider wrote:

damianhucker1 wrote:
Ive worked in football for quite a while until around 7 years ago , ive never known Jermain Pennant to be arrested for playing in a 5 a side competition at powerleague over the summer , not that he needs any further excuse to be arrested

I didn't mention anyone getting arrested, footballers, children or boxers. My point was that if the BBBOC were all powerful they could effectively ban "unsanctioned" bouts in the UK.

you said the word "illegal " , i summised that illegal meant could be arrested , my apologies if thats not what you meant .