BoxRec

Well said TONYEVS - Fwank and the bbboc have questions to answer!

tonyevs wrote: You really do have big issues with Calzaghe don`t you

Just imagine it was your beloved Froch who was in Calzaghes position ...

It makes no difference who the boxer is .. but that guy stepped into the ring risking his own life. Can you imagine fWank being able to pull a similar con-job if the unspeakable happened as in the Michael Watson or Gerald McClellan fights??

The BBB of C are almost as bad as fWank in all this. I shall reserve judgment with the new editor of BN ... but the old editor was a disgrace by also ignoring the disgusting actions of fWank :(

It maybe comes across like that Tony, but it has nothing to do with 'beloved froch'

I just think Calzaghe is a massive hypocrite.

Different when Hatton left - and Joe broke his neck to rubbish Hatton and declare "Warren is the best promoter in the World".

Ricky went through a torrid time of court cases and stuff and Calzaghe was bang out of order.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/4226934.stm "Hatton adulation riles Calzaghe"

This was launched the week that Warren sought an injunction to prevent Ricky from ever fighting again, starting with prohibiting the IBF/WBA unification against Carlos Maussa.

G0mez wrote:

tonyevs wrote: You really do have big issues with Calzaghe don`t you

Just imagine it was your beloved Froch who was in Calzaghes position ...

It makes no difference who the boxer is .. but that guy stepped into the ring risking his own life. Can you imagine fWank being able to pull a similar con-job if the unspeakable happened as in the Michael Watson or Gerald McClellan fights??

The BBB of C are almost as bad as fWank in all this. I shall reserve judgment with the new editor of BN ... but the old editor was a disgrace by also ignoring the disgusting actions of fWank :(

It maybe comes across like that Tony, but it has nothing to do with 'beloved froch'

I just think Calzaghe is a massive hypocrite.

Different when Hatton left - and Joe broke his neck to rubbish Hatton and declare "Warren is the best promoter in the World".

Ricky went through a torrid time of court cases and stuff and Calzaghe was bang out of order.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/4226934.stm "Hatton adulation riles Calzaghe"

This was launched the week that Warren sought an injunction to prevent Ricky from ever fighting again, starting with prohibiting the IBF/WBA unification against Carlos Maussa.

He never sought "an injunction to prevent Ricky from ever fighting again". That's ridiculous

And you keep bringing up that piece on which I will make two points: 1. Joe is clearly not breaking his neck to rubbish Hatton, he is giving an honest opinion. 2: Hatton was not world champion 4 years after that article

Anyway, for all Froch's endless public talk of loyalty to Hennessy, has he never had a meeting about signing with Warren?

I don`t really care what Calzaghe may or may not have said about fWank whilst he was still with him. But it was expected he would show loyalty to fWank then isn`t it

I`m also sure Froch would bite fWanks hand off if he offered a better deal than what Hennessy offered. After all, pro boxing is firstly about securing your financial future .. if it isn`t, then stay in the vest.


My point is. Calzaghe deserves to be paid. Like him or hate him ... he does deserve the money in full.

Everybody knows fWank is in the wrong. As I previously said. Imagine if there was a tragedy in the fight ... would fWank have been allowed to get away with what he has done then? There should be no difference ... he should be made to pay or banned from the game forever. The bbb of c have had others in front of them for bringing the game into disrepute for much less.

ArtOfWar wrote:He still hasn't received his money from the Hopkins fight that a court has already ordered Fwank to pay him.

He wasn't ordered to pay - the court ordered Sports Network to pay the money. Sports Network went bankrupt shortly afterwards, owing a lot of debts, including this one.

Now this case is whether Fwank deliberately caused Sports Network to go bust.

whatashambles wrote:Can someone explain how when Sports Network, seemingly run by Warren, went out of business he can just continue running allegedly promotions.
Surely you can't run two companies, offset all the debt onto one until it goes into administration and then just continue with the other?

I have a degree in business, believe me if you have a good accountant you can get away with anything in the UK, there are people in this country who earn millions, in some cases billions who will pay less in tax than your post man. In some countries if a company bounces a chq the director can be jailed, but here a limited company can get away with murder.

Nightmare Roy wrote:

whatashambles wrote:Can someone explain how when Sports Network, seemingly run by Warren, went out of business he can just continue running allegedly promotions.
Surely you can't run two companies, offset all the debt onto one until it goes into administration and then just continue with the other?

I have a degree in business, believe me if you have a good accountant you can get away with anything in the UK, there are people in this country who earn millions, in some cases billions who will pay less in tax than your post man. In some countries if a company bounces a chq the director can be jailed, but here a limited company can get away with murder.

yes but this isn't a tax case is it?

Punchy Joe wrote:

Nightmare Roy wrote:

whatashambles wrote:Can someone explain how when Sports Network, seemingly run by Warren, went out of business he can just continue running allegedly promotions.
Surely you can't run two companies, offset all the debt onto one until it goes into administration and then just continue with the other?

I have a degree in business, believe me if you have a good accountant you can get away with anything in the UK, there are people in this country who earn millions, in some cases billions who will pay less in tax than your post man. In some countries if a company bounces a chq the director can be jailed, but here a limited company can get away with murder.

yes but this isn't a tax case is it?

He did not say it was a tax case, he was showing an example of what you can 'legally' get away with.

twenty six wrote:So we're back to the Courts for round 2 of the interesting catch weight contest between Calzaghe and Warren later this year.
Calzaghe alleges that Wazza deliberately ran down his Company and sent it into adminstration to avoid paying Calzaghe the £1.8 mill judgment for monies owed following his fight with Hopkins.
It's gonna be intriguing - it should be a PPV event.
The fascinating thing is that the facts presented will become available no doubt in transcripts.
Wazza can ill afford another digit in the loss column so this is a major battle for him.
Game on !

Would you advise someone to go behind their trainer's back and sign for him ?

Hey up pal, thought you'd decided to buy your own kennel and sit in it a few months, until the coast was clear.
Perhaps you can expand on what you mean.

All my love.

beagleboy wrote:

twenty six wrote:So we're back to the Courts for round 2 of the interesting catch weight contest between Calzaghe and Warren later this year.
Calzaghe alleges that Wazza deliberately ran down his Company and sent it into adminstration to avoid paying Calzaghe the £1.8 mill judgment for monies owed following his fight with Hopkins.
It's gonna be intriguing - it should be a PPV event.
The fascinating thing is that the facts presented will become available no doubt in transcripts.
Wazza can ill afford another digit in the loss column so this is a major battle for him.
Game on !

Would you advise someone to go behind their trainer's back and sign for him ?

Surprised you haven't changed your username after Rhodes' performance against Moore made you slink away with your tail between your legs... nothing like a forum for a dose of public humiliation

I'm not saying this will happen, but in theory, the Couts can exercise its discretion to go back a number of years into the dealings of any said Company to establish that there has not been a deliberate syphoning off of funds, or assets, prior to the said Company going bust, to enable any debt not to be honoured.
I think that's the gist of it.
If it is established, then the said Directors of said Company can be barred from holding such office for a defined period.
I suppose it is also possible for it to become a criminal matter.
Calzaghe is suggesting the bankruptcy was delberate to avoid paying the debt, and Frank is saying the opposite.
I have no opinion either way because the truth will out through the Court process - if indeed it gets that far.
Sad really it has got to this.

MachoMan09 wrote:

don't call it a comeback wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:If that company has gone bust, who do you think should pay Joe? You cannot just magically make 1.8 million appear from nowhere. If you have a problem with UK business law, take it up with your local MP.

Business law is not there to prevent companies improperly avoiding their debts.

I did not state that it was, did I? Who has improperly avoided paying their debts?

This case is now about whether someone improperly avoided paying their debts. I know what I think but lets see what the court concludes.

For me this is not just about Joe Calzaghe. Its about every boxer in Britain entering a ring and trusting his promoter to pay him after the event in which he has risked his life. If that trust is not there then the Board might as well give up and go home and promoters should pay cash in advance like kerb crawling punters.

teddy007 wrote:

twenty six wrote:So we're back to the Courts for round 2 of the interesting catch weight contest between Calzaghe and Warren later this year.
Calzaghe alleges that Wazza deliberately ran down his Company and sent it into adminstration to avoid paying Calzaghe the £1.8 mill judgment for monies owed following his fight with Hopkins.
It's gonna be intriguing - it should be a PPV event.
The fascinating thing is that the facts presented will become available no doubt in transcripts.
Wazza can ill afford another digit in the loss column so this is a major battle for him.
Game on !

I would like to no what Tony Bellew thinks of this as he has a very high opinion of Frank.

My opinion don't change anything BUT what about the 500k Frank lost on the Kessler bill and also the money he lost getting the likes of Lacy over here for fights that weren't selling out??
I think it works both ways and Calzaghe leaving Frank when he did was wrong IMO, Look at Calzaghes book and he said he couldn't even pay his mortgage when he first met Frank Crazy how he left when he did..

Bomber 1 wrote:

teddy007 wrote:

twenty six wrote:So we're back to the Courts for round 2 of the interesting catch weight contest between Calzaghe and Warren later this year.
Calzaghe alleges that Wazza deliberately ran down his Company and sent it into adminstration to avoid paying Calzaghe the £1.8 mill judgment for monies owed following his fight with Hopkins.
It's gonna be intriguing - it should be a PPV event.
The fascinating thing is that the facts presented will become available no doubt in transcripts.
Wazza can ill afford another digit in the loss column so this is a major battle for him.
Game on !

I would like to no what Tony Bellew thinks of this as he has a very high opinion of Frank.

My opinion don't change anything BUT what about the 500k Frank lost on the Kessler bill and also the money he lost getting the likes of Lacy over here for fights that weren't selling out??
I think it works both ways and Calzaghe leaving Frank when he did was wrong IMO, Look at Calzaghes book and he said he couldn't even pay his mortgage when he first met Frank Crazy how he left when he did..

Bomber, you're so on the money on virtually any other subject I see you posting on but you've got a massive blind spot when it comes to this one.
Do you really believe he lost those sums on those fights? Is it really plausible that the most successful boxing promoter from these shores ever suddenly decided to park his business brain and act as a charity to get Calzaghe his defining fights?
Joe left Frank after he made made a lot of money out of the relationship, but you seem to be completely forgetting that Frank made a lot of money out of Joe as well... and it was Calzaghe in the ring taking the shots, not him.
Frank has frequently ended business relationships with fighters where there was no longer any reward for him in maintaining it, so why should Joe be criticised for doing the same thing.
He made Frank a shedload of cash and then right at the end of his career (and crucially at the end of his contract!), wanted a couple of fights under his own banner to wrap things up. What is wrong with that? I'm astonished that someone can choose to interpret the whole thing differently...

Bomber 1 wrote:

teddy007 wrote:

twenty six wrote:So we're back to the Courts for round 2 of the interesting catch weight contest between Calzaghe and Warren later this year.
Calzaghe alleges that Wazza deliberately ran down his Company and sent it into adminstration to avoid paying Calzaghe the £1.8 mill judgment for monies owed following his fight with Hopkins.
It's gonna be intriguing - it should be a PPV event.
The fascinating thing is that the facts presented will become available no doubt in transcripts.
Wazza can ill afford another digit in the loss column so this is a major battle for him.
Game on !

I would like to no what Tony Bellew thinks of this as he has a very high opinion of Frank.

My opinion don't change anything BUT what about the 500k Frank lost on the Kessler bill and also the money he lost getting the likes of Lacy over here for fights that weren't selling out??
I think it works both ways and Calzaghe leaving Frank when he did was wrong IMO, Look at Calzaghes book and he said he couldn't even pay his mortgage when he first met Frank Crazy how he left when he did..

I'm sorry I don't buy that. Did Frank really lose that much on the Kessler bill? If so, does that include payments made to himself and expenses incurred by himself.

Either way, over 50,000 people paid high prices to see that fight and there was a good tv deal with Setanta. What more could a promoter ask for? If Warren did lose money then it was becuase the event wasn't budgeted properly.

But at the end of the day, all of that is 100% irrelevant. A promoter is a businessman who takes risks with his eyes open, he can make money or lose money. Warren has made millions.

The responsibility of the boxer is not the overall profit of the event. His job is to help publicise the fight, turn up as promised, fight his very best and then get the money he is owed. If that doesn't happen then something is very wrong.

What has all this got to do with the BBBoC?

Bomber 1 wrote:

teddy007 wrote:

twenty six wrote:So we're back to the Courts for round 2 of the interesting catch weight contest between Calzaghe and Warren later this year.
Calzaghe alleges that Wazza deliberately ran down his Company and sent it into adminstration to avoid paying Calzaghe the £1.8 mill judgment for monies owed following his fight with Hopkins.
It's gonna be intriguing - it should be a PPV event.
The fascinating thing is that the facts presented will become available no doubt in transcripts.
Wazza can ill afford another digit in the loss column so this is a major battle for him.
Game on !

I would like to no what Tony Bellew thinks of this as he has a very high opinion of Frank.

My opinion don't change anything BUT what about the 500k Frank lost on the Kessler bill and also the money he lost getting the likes of Lacy over here for fights that weren't selling out??
I think it works both ways and Calzaghe leaving Frank when he did was wrong IMO, Look at Calzaghes book and he said he couldn't even pay his mortgage when he first met Frank Crazy how he left when he did..

Tony, its Fwanks job to PROMOTE - if the venue did not sell out it's at the Promoters door.

Also because Fwank made Calzaghe money to pay his mortgage then Fwank did a good job BUT its what he was supposed to do.

Fwank is in the wrong on this one.


100%

taffytoon wrote:What has all this got to do with the BBBoC?

The BBBO NO Control have fined and suspended Promoters for as little as saying nasty things BUT Fwank seems to get away with slagging off most high profile figjhters NOT with him and now this looks bad for nthe sport.


This saga is bringing the game of boxing into disrepute.They should suspend Fwank, imo.

Question to Tony 'If you left Fwanbk and he refused to pay you £1.8M( allegedly) because he felt you were disloyal,what would you do?

DD

Sports Network cant have budgeted for more than the 50,000 people that they got.So if it did,somehow,make a loss,Fwank must have known it was going to.
I actually agree with Fwank that it was low of Joe to leave him after all he had done for him,but his revenge was way over the top!Perhaps Joe shouldnt have expected anything else.He was never going to get away with it,was he?

Just in case you missed the questoion.

WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF FWANK HELD BACK YOUR £1.8M BECAUSE HE FELT YOU WERE DISLOYAL OR HE WOUND UO HIS COMPANY SO HE DID NOT PAY YOU? Is ths what Joe is saying?

Bomber - what would you do?

DG. wrote:

taffytoon wrote:What has all this got to do with the BBBoC?

The BBBO NO Control have fined and suspended Promoters for as little as saying nasty things BUT Fwank seems to get away with slagging off most high profile figjhters NOT with him and now this looks bad for nthe sport.


This saga is bringing the game of boxing into disrepute.They should suspend Fwank, imo.

Question to Tony 'If you left Fwanbk and he refused to pay you £1.8M( allegedly) because he felt you were disloyal,what would you do?

DD

D.G
My understanding is that the money in question was for the BH fight (purse has been mentioned) The BBBoC would have no authority over this as it was santioned in the USA surely? As for suspending promoters for saying bad things? Do you have an example mate?

taffytoon wrote:

DG. wrote:

taffytoon wrote:What has all this got to do with the BBBoC?

The BBBO NO Control have fined and suspended Promoters for as little as saying nasty things BUT Fwank seems to get away with slagging off most high profile figjhters NOT with him and now this looks bad for nthe sport.


This saga is bringing the game of boxing into disrepute.They should suspend Fwank, imo.

Question to Tony 'If you left Fwanbk and he refused to pay you £1.8M( allegedly) because he felt you were disloyal,what would you do?

DD

D.G
My understanding is that the money in question was for the BH fight (purse has been mentioned) The BBBoC would have no authority over this as it was santioned in the USA surely? As for suspending promoters for saying bad things? Do you have an example mate?

Makes no difference where the fight in question was fought. Calzaghe and fWank are both BBB of C licence holders.

Tony Bellew. I hope that fWank is as loyal to you in the future if things don`t run smoothly

Deserter wrote:

Bomber 1 wrote:My opinion don't change anything BUT what about the 500k Frank lost on the Kessler bill and also the money he lost getting the likes of Lacy over here for fights that weren't selling out??
I think it works both ways and Calzaghe leaving Frank when he did was wrong IMO, Look at Calzaghes book and he said he couldn't even pay his mortgage when he first met Frank Crazy how he left when he did..

Bomber, you're so on the money on virtually any other subject I see you posting on but you've got a massive blind spot when it comes to this one.
Do you really believe he lost those sums on those fights? Is it really plausible that the most successful boxing promoter from these shores ever suddenly decided to park his business brain and act as a charity to get Calzaghe his defining fights?
Joe left Frank after he made made a lot of money out of the relationship, but you seem to be completely forgetting that Frank made a lot of money out of Joe as well... and it was Calzaghe in the ring taking the shots, not him.
Frank has frequently ended business relationships with fighters where there was no longer any reward for him in maintaining it, so why should Joe be criticised for doing the same thing.
He made Frank a shedload of cash and then right at the end of his career (and crucially at the end of his contract!), wanted a couple of fights under his own banner to wrap things up. What is wrong with that? I'm astonished that someone can choose to interpret the whole thing differently...

What Tony's saying I don't think can be true. So Frank W lost money but Joe Calzaghe made money. Warren would not let that happen. He's a good businessman. No, I think both parties did silly things to one another, but Warren should pay Calzaghe at least some of the money he is owed.

I quoted you Deserter because you make some good points.

taffytoon wrote:

DG. wrote:

taffytoon wrote:What has all this got to do with the BBBoC?

The BBBO NO Control have fined and suspended Promoters for as little as saying nasty things BUT Fwank seems to get away with slagging off most high profile figjhters NOT with him and now this looks bad for nthe sport.


This saga is bringing the game of boxing into disrepute.They should suspend Fwank, imo.

Question to Tony 'If you left Fwanbk and he refused to pay you £1.8M( allegedly) because he felt you were disloyal,what would you do?

DD

D.G
My understanding is that the money in question was for the BH fight (purse has been mentioned) The BBBoC would have no authority over this as it was santioned in the USA surely? As for suspending promoters for saying bad things? Do you have an example mate?

You will notice I 'edited' my post for legal reasons..

But I am sure Panios Eliades was banned/sued for bringing the game into disrepute and paying Lennox less than he should have, not saying this is linked to FWANK - many fighters have been fined for sayinmg the truth as they AS THEY SEE IT - bOBBIE vANZIE BEING ONE- Frank Maloney was in trouble recently for comments on the Mcdermott Vs Fury fight..but..Fwank seems to slag off fighters all the time and nothing happens and mentions a 'mystery fighter on hgh' - surely that is bringing the game into disrepute especially when it is in a national scummy paper and all the world can see it and judge boxing negatively.

Is it a level playing field?


AND TONYEVS is right, the BBBOC have a say anywhere in the world a license holder operates or has a fighter operating.

PAY UP!!

THIS SAGA LOOKS BAD ON BRITISH BOXING.