BoxRec

dondada wrote:If it's a Board contract, why wouldn't you go to the Board first? If they can't sort it, then go elsewhere. If they can, job's a good un and you've saved a load of legal fees.

They going to be busy in the next few months I reckon!

Does anyone know why the board have two registrations at companies house?

They are trading as both British Boxing of Control Ltd and BBBofC Ltd. They have two sets of accounts with differing profit margins.

Surely its perfectly legit but just wonder why?

Also when Miranda Carter and Bruce Baker complained about the board sitting on a retained profit of around £900,000, the figure is actually nearer £1.3 million when this second set of accounts is taken into consideration.

Dondada,
Problem is often the case is not resolved once the Board has adjudicated.
Either party can then appeal which goes to the Appeal Stewards.
Therafter you can resort to litigation.
These cases run and run and run and run.
I have never once in my whole life, heard of a Contract dispute where both sides accepted the Board's decision.

leforge wrote:

dondada wrote:If it's a Board contract, why wouldn't you go to the Board first? If they can't sort it, then go elsewhere. If they can, job's a good un and you've saved a load of legal fees.

They going to be busy in the next few months I reckon!

But why are they not busy now, if the rumours are true?

There seems to have been a lot of mud-slinging with no substantiation. I'm not attempting to defend anyone here, but if someone has a real complaint then they need to back it up. So far the only person who has gone public with any kind of action is James DeGale and, to date, he has not mentioned money (or lack of).

Are all these fighters who are rumoured not have been been paid going to wait until they have fought again before formally doing something?

I would be interested to see how weighted against the boxers the Board contracts are though. Smith says that a licence holder can not simply walk away from a contract, but what if the other party is not fulfilling its obligations? Surely there is a break-clause or equivalent to protect either party from malicious, discriminatory or bias acts from the other party?

earsjohn wrote:

leforge wrote:

dondada wrote:If it's a Board contract, why wouldn't you go to the Board first? If they can't sort it, then go elsewhere. If they can, job's a good un and you've saved a load of legal fees.

They going to be busy in the next few months I reckon!

But why are they not busy now, if the rumours are true?

There seems to have been a lot of mud-slinging with no substantiation. I'm not attempting to defend anyone here, but if someone has a real complaint then they need to back it up. So far the only person who has gone public with any kind of action is James DeGale and, to date, he has not mentioned money (or lack of).

Are all these fighters who are rumoured not have been been paid going to wait until they have fought again before formally doing something?

I would be interested to see how weighted against the boxers the Board contracts are though. Smith says that a licence holder can not simply walk away from a contract, but what if the other party is not fulfilling its obligations? Surely there is a break-clause or equivalent to protect either party from malicious, discriminatory or bias acts from the other party?

I been told of few that have not been paid. I am not sure why more have not written letters. By sounds of it some have phoned them. I would imagine failure to pay would be a breach of contract.

Most contracts state that monies must be paid "promply".
Define promptly !

What the blazes is the point of sending it to their Area Council? This reminds me of the BDO in darts.

Maybe boxing needs a "PDC"

Abbo wrote: Maybe boxing needs a "PDC"

If Barry ran boxing it would improve no end.

So Your a boxer , contacted to promoter A ,,, he does'nt pay , but you are still legally bound to him until you have the matter sorted by the board , which has to be instigated in writing

So you write the letter of complaint

They speak to the promoter .

He claims there is circumstances beyond his control .

They give him time to pay

He effectivly black bans you , putting said boxer out of work

Boxer cannot get out of contract because , said promoter has promised to pay when circumstances allow

Boxer is out of work and cannot afford a good lawyer .

Promoter and committee members discuss it over champers and lobster at the next big fight , and all agree amicably its a shame , but thats boxing But committee is very understanding of said promoters problems , because after all he has to pay for his liscence , he has to pay the fee's associated with the fight nights which of course help the board to bank money , and champers and lobster are not cheap .

Time for a shake up

Alot of conjecture on this thread, I dont think anyone can accurately comment unless they have actually seen a copy of the contracts. There may well be a clause which allows for payments to be made late. Just because boxer A was expecting his money on date B doesnt necessarily mean he's legally entitled to it on date B. The gentleman in question doesn't tend to lose court cases.

I'm quite interested in the suggestion that boxers may not be able to afford legal fees. Wouldnt they be entitled to legal aid if that were case? With regard to expenses, here in Scotland expenses automatically follow success in the action. So if I sue you and win, you're liable for my expenses almost necessarily. It would be highly unusual for that not to be the case up here.

Also what in the name of God are the mangers of these boxers playing at? I've always been suspicious of managers who solely deal in boxers. Far too many cosy relationships and vested interests with promoters. The only thing worse is when they hire their completely unqualified dad, trainer or best pal. Just get yourself a decent lawyer to manage your affairs, its not the slightest bit difficult.

Trojan,
Having a laugh mate.
You cannot get Legal Aid on a Civil matter.
I can comment I have seen contracts.
Scottish Law and English Law is like margarine and butter.
Both are ok but totally different.

Really not all? Thats ridiculous! How do poor folk get access to civil justice, absolutely scandalous.

Move up here mate, its the land of milk and honey, you'll be rolling in legal aid by the end of the week!

You wouldn't be able to get legal aid for this situation but i would expect to be awarded costs, to be fair.

I would also disagree with the contention above that a certain gentleman does not lose court cases. Yes he does.

danfoster wrote:You wouldn't be able to get legal aid for this situation but i would expect to be awarded costs, to be fair.

I would also disagree with the contention above that a certain gentleman does not lose court cases. Yes he does.

Yes he does...and then doesn't bother paying anyway.

Glyn Leach wrote:Very good question. That Smith claim to the effect that complainants must present their cases to the Board before going legal sticks out a bit, doesn't it. The Board are above the law of the land?

He's right in a way.

I have seen a number of boxer's contracts and have advised in relation to potential challenges to board decisions (none of which ultimately been necessary in the end as the correct decision was reached without need for recourse).

I can say that without question, in my view, a number of the board's processes are absolutely wide-open to challenge. I also ran a particular case past a QC who considered the case in question to be a slam-dunk due to the archaic and unlawful process by which a certain decision was reached.

However, Smith is correct in saying that complaints should be directed through the Board's grievance resolution system before one turns to litigation. Judicial Review, the tool that would be used to challenge (for example) a Board decision not to grant a license or not to order payment of a lawful debt, will only be progressed once the court is satisfied that all other methods of resolving the matter within the jurisdiction's own governance have been satisfied. In plain English, the court wont hear such a case if the problem hasn't been heard in full by the appropriate governing body (whether it be the CCRC, the Home Office, the Department for Education or the BBBoC).

However, disputes in CONTRACT between PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT are different and there is no way in the world that Robert Smith could turn up at the High Court and protest about proceedings being issued at court before his lads have had a look at it! It just doesn't work that way. If you believe that the other party is in breach of a term of his contract, and that breach is so pronounced that it is recissionary (which means the wronged party can get out the contract), then you get lawyer on the case and consider yourself free of contract and sue for the money owed.

There's nowt that anyone who isn't a party to that contract can do about it.

However, let's imagine a totally hypothetical situation whereby a boxer hadn't been paid and instructed solicitors, then acting on their advice issued proceedings for money owed under the terms of the contract and declared himself free of managerial / promoter ties. The promotor or manager in question may protest to the board, maybe because he doesn't agree with the allegations made by the boxer. The Board may look at the promoter's complaint with some sympathy. They may not agree that the boxer deserves to get out of his contract or they may be irked that the Board have not been consulted to rule on this issue.

In this situation, the Board may choose to suspend the boxer from licensed bouts (an effective 'injunction') because of what they may consider a rightful complaint by the promoter. That suspension may be pending a full hearing on the matter. In that time, the fighter in unable to earn money by exercising his trade and in this case he may have a recourse by both a suit in contract against the Board and also a Judicial Review of the Board's decision to suspend him. The suit would be aimed at damages calculated at lost earnings; the JR would (if succesful) render the decision meaningless and entitle him to carry out his job.

Hope all this makes sense!

Wake up call wrote:I've long thought that boxers need some kind of union representation. I know Barry McGuigan and Micky Cantwell tried to get something going a few years back but that doesn't seem to be going any more.

I'm told that boxers can join the GMB, but I only know of one which has and that boxer successfully had a manager and promoter suspended for ripping him off.

The PBA was active in the mid 90's and part of their remit was to work with the board and other stakeholders to improve contracts etc on behalf of the boxers. Steve Holdsworth wrote a great article in Boxing News in 1995 (I just happened to be reading it last night) on impact of television on promotions that do not have tv revenue, and he made a staunch case that there will be a decrease in the amount of shows, hence more and more licenced boxers would be out of work.

One of the things that he suggested, at the time, was that the PBA work with the board to, not only make changes to licenced payers contracts, but to help make the small hall shows more affordable (with the cooperation of the board). The board makes money each year from all licence payers (boxers, promoters, managers, trainers etc), they stood to profit more from the tv shows - so were in a position to help the smaller shows, and in doing so, help keep small hall shows ticking over etc. As Holdsworth said, when asked if there is money to be made in boxing, "you can make a small fortune in the end, but you will spend a big fortune in the beginning".

These type of current contract disputes, just reinforce the need for a PBA, that has a wider remit to not only lobby the board but to further the interests of all stakeholders in the sport.

dondada wrote:If it's a Board contract, why wouldn't you go to the Board first? If they can't sort it, then go elsewhere. If they can, job's a good un and you've saved a load of legal fees.

For a fast and definitive resolution by an ajudicator that no one can claim has allegiances to one side of the argument or the other. The Board might well be above its members but it is not above the law and sometimes the law must be used to keep the Board in line with society, the Jane Couch licence dispute, Michael Watson for example. I can see why the Board would not want licence holders to go to court instead of them, they usually end up with egg on their faces and out of pocket - all of which could be avoided by being a fair and democratic governing body in the first place. Yes it might cost money but a sportsman's life is too short to be put on hold while an archaic 'due process' takes place, taking months or even years off an athlete's life.

twenty six wrote:Dondada,
Problem is often the case is not resolved once the Board has adjudicated.
Either party can then appeal which goes to the Appeal Stewards.
Therafter you can resort to litigation.
These cases run and run and run and run.
I have never once in my whole life, heard of a Contract dispute where both sides accepted the Board's decision.

No me old pal - you're missing my point as are a few others.

Go to the Board in the first instance. If you don't, they can always say they weren't approached and any Pontius Pilate act is strengthened. I'm not saying they'll sort the job out...but it is their responsibility to try and do so - by not approaching them in the due manner one might say you're assisting them in abdicating this responsibility.

Agreed mate.
I'm getting board with this now !
Excuse the pun.
Was going to put adios as well - but that's a step too far.

Glyn Leach wrote:

dondada wrote:If it's a Board contract, why wouldn't you go to the Board first? If they can't sort it, then go elsewhere. If they can, job's a good un and you've saved a load of legal fees.

For a fast and definitive resolution by an ajudicator that no one can claim has allegiances to one side of the argument or the other. The Board might well be above its members but it is not above the law and sometimes the law must be used to keep the Board in line with society, the Jane Couch licence dispute, Michael Watson for example. I can see why the Board would not want licence holders to go to court instead of them, they usually end up with egg on their faces and out of pocket - all of which could be avoided by being a fair and democratic governing body in the first place. Yes it might cost money but a sportsman's life is too short to be put on hold while an archaic 'due process' takes place, taking months or even years off an athlete's life.

Go to the Board, then the solicitors, IMO. If you don't go to the Board, they can always hold that against you whilst not having to fulfil their responsibilities anyway. They don't have to be given ages to sort the job out...but at least they'll have to do something rather than getting off the hook.

As for 'fast and definitive' resulting from going down the legal route...I'd be surprised and delighted!

dondada wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:

dondada wrote:If it's a Board contract, why wouldn't you go to the Board first? If they can't sort it, then go elsewhere. If they can, job's a good un and you've saved a load of legal fees.

For a fast and definitive resolution by an ajudicator that no one can claim has allegiances to one side of the argument or the other. The Board might well be above its members but it is not above the law and sometimes the law must be used to keep the Board in line with society, the Jane Couch licence dispute, Michael Watson for example. I can see why the Board would not want licence holders to go to court instead of them, they usually end up with egg on their faces and out of pocket - all of which could be avoided by being a fair and democratic governing body in the first place. Yes it might cost money but a sportsman's life is too short to be put on hold while an archaic 'due process' takes place, taking months or even years off an athlete's life.

Go to the Board, then the solicitors, IMO. If you don't go to the Board, they can always hold that against you whilst not having to fulfil their responsibilities anyway. They don't have to be given ages to sort the job out...but at least they'll have to do something rather than getting off the hook.

As for 'fast and definitive' resulting from going down the legal route...I'd be surprised and delighted!

The answer is instruct solicitors and then go down the Board route from the outset with the assistance of professional legal support. I agree with Ian that this avenue should be exhausted first (even if you strongly suspect you wont get satisfaction) largely for the reason i have stated above - JR is not possible unless all other avenues have been exhausted.

Ian, as for fast and definitive - the Civil Procedure Rules now mean that only people that deliberately mess about end up taking a long time to sort issues. When proceedings are started against a party, if that party is in the wrong the meter is running (in terms of costs, legal and court) from the moment proceedings are issued and especially from the moment any offer to settle is made. Only reckless people drag it out these days (or people who do not have the means / intention to pay anyway).

dondada wrote:

twenty six wrote:Dondada,
Problem is often the case is not resolved once the Board has adjudicated.
Either party can then appeal which goes to the Appeal Stewards.
Therafter you can resort to litigation.
These cases run and run and run and run.
I have never once in my whole life, heard of a Contract dispute where both sides accepted the Board's decision.

No me old pal - you're missing my point as are a few others.

Go to the Board in the first instance. If you don't, they can always say they weren't approached and any Pontius Pilate act is strengthened. I'm not saying they'll sort the job out...but it is their responsibility to try and do so - by not approaching them in the due manner one might say you're assisting them in abdicating this responsibility.

Obviously a complaint would be registered with the Board first, the law courts cannot be expected to do all boxing's dirty work - that shouldn't need saying, but in case some need to hear it ... The point is that if someone doesn't want to go through the agonising 'due process' experience, there is an option. And not an option that can be ignored, like the rulings of a self-appointed governing body. For instance, if the Board says so and so is owed money and should be paid, what can they actually do about it? Taking away someone's licence is an empty gesture when the same person can expect to get another one under a different name. What good is that to the party that is owed money? The only party it helps is the Board, who can say, in all correctness, that they followed their beloved 'due process' and did what was required of them according to the rule book they themselves wrote and can rewrite at will under the current system.

A properly run Board should be a last recourse, but in the absence of that there is the law of the land, to whom everybody must answer. And many times when the Board has been brought into question in front of a judge, it has been found wanting as a governing body - so why rely on it at all?

danfoster wrote:Only reckless people drag it out these days (or people who do not have the means / intention to pay anyway).

8)

Glyn Leach wrote:

dondada wrote:

twenty six wrote: A properly run Board should be a last recourse, but in the absence of that there is the law of the land, to whom everybody must answer. And many times when the Board has been brought into question in front of a judge, it has been found wanting as a governing body - so why rely on it at all?

I completely understand where you are coming from but as i have said above, the courts will expect wronged parties to have attempted to settle disputes within the jurisdiction of the relevant governing bodies. If not, they may just throw the case back UNTIL you have exhausted all appropriate avenues.

As frustrating as it may be, ignoring the Board's process may actually end up costing you time, not gaining it.

Glyn Leach wrote:

dondada wrote:

twenty six wrote:Dondada,
Problem is often the case is not resolved once the Board has adjudicated.
Either party can then appeal which goes to the Appeal Stewards.
Therafter you can resort to litigation.
These cases run and run and run and run.
I have never once in my whole life, heard of a Contract dispute where both sides accepted the Board's decision.

No me old pal - you're missing my point as are a few others.

Go to the Board in the first instance. If you don't, they can always say they weren't approached and any Pontius Pilate act is strengthened. I'm not saying they'll sort the job out...but it is their responsibility to try and do so - by not approaching them in the due manner one might say you're assisting them in abdicating this responsibility.

Obviously a complaint would be registered with the Board first, the law courts cannot be expected to do all boxing's dirty work - that shouldn't need saying, but in case some need to hear it ... The point is that if someone doesn't want to go through the agonising 'due process' experience, there is an option. And not an option that can be ignored, like the rulings of a self-appointed governing body. For instance, if the Board says so and so is owed money and should be paid, what can they actually do about it? Taking away someone's licence is an empty gesture when the same person can expect to get another one under a different name. What good is that to the party that is owed money? The only party it helps is the Board, who can say, in all correctness, that they followed their beloved 'due process' and did what was required of them according to the rule book they themselves wrote and can rewrite at will under the current system.

A properly run Board should be a last recourse, but in the absence of that there is the law of the land, to whom everybody must answer. And many times when the Board has been brought into question in front of a judge, it has been found wanting as a governing body - so why rely on it at all?

I'm not saying rely on it. Quite the opposite - I agree with what you're saying. However, you say it 'shouldn't need saying' that a complaint should be registered with the Board first...but that doesn't appear to be the case. Chunky hasn't done this - yet. Only one licence holder has. The others should at least prevail upon the Board to do their job, IMO. If written complaints aren't made, the Board appear to have initial legal and moral high ground whilst having to do precisely fornicate all.

One can always prime the solicitors regardless...