BoxRec

stujones wrote:

Ben Carey wrote:The Board are currently locked in discussions and will make a statement later today about Haye-Chisora & Luxembourg etc. Some people on this forum, me included, are calling for them to take swift and stern action. But, realistically, what should and what can they do?

What would you do? Are the Board effectively on a hiding to nothing here? So, the options are thus:

1. Firm action. Strip Warren's UK license from him and any UK boxers who appear on the Haye-Chisora show? But on what grounds (Warren is fronting but not promoting the fight??) and ultimately what might this achieve?

2. Aggressive action. Seek an injunction (I doubt this is possible) preventing the fight from happening in Britain?

3. Damage limitation - fastrack Chisora's appeal date, give him a suspended ban with a view to coming to an arrangement with Allegedly that Haye-Chisora must happen under BBBofC jurisdiction to avoid this setting a precedent?

Hi Ben, I don't think it is clear or not what is Warren's official stance with the fight. From how I've read it the loop hole means Warren could optain a luxemberg licence to promote it? He was making comparisons of other BBBoC licenced promoters using other licences to promote shows abroad. For example, Hennessy's promoting in Canada.

As Luxemberg is the EU, you can host a show in the UK.

Hi Stu,

Agreed Warren's involvement, to me, remains unclear. I did however agree with his assertion about other promoters throwing stones - the most obviously example being Barry Hearn promoting Herol Graham vs Julian Jackson in Spain.

BBBofC are run on the cheap. Unlike FA. A fact often over looked but outlined by Ron Lewis yesterday.

BBBofC are inefficient in dealing with appeals. Three month delay is unacceptable.

BBBofC have repeatedly failed to act on consensus criticism of officials, either adjudicating on fights, refereeing them or looking after a fighters interests abroad - if FW is to be believed on the Munich farce.

At some point the foriegn body was always going to happen. It was the unspoken reality of the ay boxing is set-up.

BBBofC are reliant on those they regulate to maintain them.

I hope they should stand firm on Haye and especially Chisora. It is tough though. I just hope that if/when it really does get messy then it is remembered that Allegedly initiated this. As it's already been said, this always had the potential to appear on the horizon.

The BBBofC should try and get the backing of the EBU (of which Charles Giles is vice president) and get a ban put on Luxembourg from staging this and then any fighters, managers, trainers or officials that still work the fight banned from fighting or working for any European titles. Just my thoughts on it because I think both Haye and Chisora should serve a ban, they were disgraceful scenes and brought British Boxing down into the gutter

jonny wrote:The BBBofC should try and get the backing of the EBU (of which Charles Giles is vice president) and get a ban put on Luxembourg from staging this and then any fighters or officials that still work the fight banned from fighting or working for any European titles. Just my thoughts on it

Arguably the first logical and definited strategic suggestion on this thread, Jonny. But would the EBU be interested in helping the BBBofC? I don't see how they will benefit from getting their hands dirty.

Any more for any more?

The 'BBB of C' is always and has been the biggest promoter, there is absolutley naught they can do about this and it is up Fwanks street anyway as he started out in the unlicensed fighting business. What can they do? What I would do is pay boxrec a hefty fee to not put up fight results on the record of any fight in the UK that is not licensed by the BBB of C. Other than that - there is nothing they can do. It's been a toothless tiger for the past 25 years. Once, it managed to stop Henry Cooper fighting Jimmy Ellis for the WBA title, now it can't do shit.

Ben Carey wrote:

jonny wrote:The BBBofC should try and get the backing of the EBU (of which Charles Giles is vice president) and get a ban put on Luxembourg from staging this and then any fighters or officials that still work the fight banned from fighting or working for any European titles. Just my thoughts on it

Arguably the first logical and definited strategic suggestion on this thread, Jonny. But would the EBU be interested in helping the BBBofC? I don't see how they will benefit from getting their hands dirty.

Any more for any more?

I think they will Ben as they were calling for action from the board to deliver punishments.

Newport Daz wrote:I don't see what they can do. From a legal standpoint they're stuffed and if they start banning boxers for appearing on the card I'm sure there'll be legal ramifications against them too. And what's stopping other UK fighters dropping their UK liscences when they expire and get Luxembourg ones? The Luxemborg comission is recognised by the EBU, WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO, so holding their liscence is hardly going to be detrimental to a boxer's career.

Personally I think the BBBoC has brought this on themselves. In terms of corporate governance they are one of the worst run organisations in the UK and are finally reaping what they have sown.

I expect a strongly worded statement of how they disapprove and that'll be it.

excellent post mate, the BBB of C will kick themselves in the bollocks if they do anything at all, they cant, we are in the EU, people have freedom of action, freedom of movement and equal rights.

this could spell the end of the BBB of C. (which would be a shame because they are a disorganised pile of shlte!!)

If I was the bored...... then I wouldn't have suspended Chisoras licence in the first place, he's the best thing to happen to the HW division in years

If i was the board, i would eat humble pie, and on 2nd july at the board hearing, give chisora + hay a licence, say they have learned there lesson, and get some sanction fees in, no other real choise

The luxembourg comission should respect the BBBofc decision to suspend Chisora's licence...if they don't then they show themselves as a tinpot organisation with no remit...frankly it stinks...and thankfully as the EU self implodes we will no longer have to deal with this utter crap...no one is saying Chisora does not deserve to be banned....one way out dont buy the fight ,dont go and just ignore it.

well, this is as bold a statement as the BBBoC could possibly make
they may not be able to block haye or chisora, but do you think booth/warren will want to lose their ability to promote/manage fighters here (you could add haye to that as part of hayemaker)
will any brittish fighter have anything to do with the undercard (rumour on another thread about mitchell vs burns at upton)
any trainer/cutman risk not ever being able to join a brittish fighter in the corner again

The British Boxing Board of Control have warned all those involved in the heavyweight promotion between David Haye and Dereck Chisora will be automatically stripped of their licences.

The Board are determined to come down hard on the Upton Park show, which is due to take place on July 14 and has been sanctioned by the Luxembourg Boxing Federation despite neither Haye nor Chisora currently holding licences to box in Britain.

And their warning means any licence holder - including the promoter, managers, seconds and other fighters on the bill - will be deemed to have broken the terms of their membership, and instantly stripped.

The Board said in a statement: "The Articles of Association...of the British Boxing Board of Control, to which every member has agreed to be bound, make it perfectly clear that the object of the BBBoC is to control and regulate boxing in the United Kingdom.

"Any member of the BBBoC who participates in any way in a promotion such as that referred to above would thereby evince an intention not to be bound by the Constitution of the BBBoC and would act in a manner wholly incompatible therewith.

"In such circumstances the BBBoC would accept that member's repudiation of the Constitution as terminating his/her membership of the BBBoC and his/her licence."

I will monitor the current situation closely , being someone who is intending to take out a license i am interested to know how this all pans out and whether there is anything that may directly or indirectly effect me down the line .

For example i wouldnt want to pay for a BBBoC license only to find a legal case causes them to be exterminated , not suggesting that will happen but something that as an example i need to monitor .

Has anyone said: "Send out for hookers & gin", yet?

MachoMan09 wrote:The best way for the Board to limit damage and make this story go away is to fast-track Chisora's hearing, give him his licence back and lend their full support to the show. This will make them look weak but it will prevent a precedent from being set and buy them the time to carry out a root and branch review of precisely what their role should be going forward; and, more importantly, determine how much power they actually have the capacity to effectively wield. Any other course of action will prove more costly, in every sense of the word.

I agree with this.

MachoMan09 wrote:

Datsue wrote:Has anyone said: "Send out for hookers & gin", yet?

Forget about the hookers and gin. You should be worrying about what George Groves is going to do about a trainer if Adam Booth gets his licence stripped.

Okay.

Has anyone mentioned that they blame George Groves, then?

If not, I would like to be the first.

DavidPayne wrote:BBBofC are run on the cheap. Unlike FA. A fact often over looked but outlined by Ron Lewis yesterday.

BBBofC are inefficient in dealing with appeals. Three month delay is unacceptable.

BBBofC have repeatedly failed to act on consensus criticism of officials, either adjudicating on fights, refereeing them or looking after a fighters interests abroad - if FW is to be believed on the Munich farce.

At some point the foriegn body was always going to happen. It was the unspoken reality of the ay boxing is set-up.

BBBofC are reliant on those they regulate to maintain them.

I think David touches on the most important factor here for me. The Security in Germany was a disgace. What has been done about that? At every press conference, weigh in and fight I've ever been to, there's been security strategically positioned to PREVENT incident, not just to contain it. If that press conference had been promoted by Warren, Hearn, Maloney etc the brawl would never have happened. Of course Chisora shouldn't have walked out and up to Haye but ordinarily he'd have been held back and they'd have been separated and both men walk away with pride intact. Take a look at the first Clev v Bellew presser and see how security is in control of that situation. To just criticise Chisora and Haye and get all righteous and say the sports been dragged into the gutter and all the rest of it is easy and lazy. Shame on the Board for taking that option and making a scapegoat out of one man rather than highlighting and questioning the ineptitude of K2 promotions. It wasn't just that event either. How Haye wasn't seriously injured during his ringwalk against Wlad is also beyond me.

As much as the board will not want to back track, this is what they should do.:-

They should say they do not agree with the behaviour in Germany
They say they do not agree with how this bill has been brought about in any way

BUT

20000 tickets sold after 1 day show the interest in the fight and for the reason of public demand only, with reluctance, will support the bout

The only thing they can do is to quietly pay Chiasora a huge sum of money to make a travesty of the new bill, that said he may do that without payment, or pay some thugs to go and wreck it, which may alos happen anyway. But a successful event is really bad news for them.

The best the board can hope for here is the support of its members in terms of refusal to take part 'for the good of the sport in the uk'. Threats won't help I there cause I don think- they need to be lobbying for support and solidarity but in a sport like boxing where greed is so prevelant at all levels I think they are unlikely to get the support they need. Macho mans point regarding the website is totally on track- if they were more prominent then rule makers an upholders they'd be in a better position I think. Compare the UFC website to the bbbc one.

That said there are only 4-5 full time employees all fairly advanced in age (no disrespect) so I don't think they are that up on social networking etc...

There record for safety in recent years is superb and I genuinely think they are nessacary for the good of the sport but they are in a bad place

No leanency. Strip frank ofhis licence ban haye and chisora from ever having a brit licnece (not restriction of trade if they can get licenced somewhere else) strip titles from undercard fighters and refuse to let fighters on undercard contest for brit,english, area etc title again.

dsimpson wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:BBBofC are run on the cheap. Unlike FA. A fact often over looked but outlined by Ron Lewis yesterday.

BBBofC are inefficient in dealing with appeals. Three month delay is unacceptable.

BBBofC have repeatedly failed to act on consensus criticism of officials, either adjudicating on fights, refereeing them or looking after a fighters interests abroad - if FW is to be believed on the Munich farce.

At some point the foriegn body was always going to happen. It was the unspoken reality of the ay boxing is set-up.

BBBofC are reliant on those they regulate to maintain them.

I think David touches on the most important factor here for me. The Security in Germany was a disgace. What has been done about that? At every press conference, weigh in and fight I've ever been to, there's been security strategically positioned to PREVENT incident, not just to contain it. If that press conference had been promoted by Warren, Hearn, Maloney etc the brawl would never have happened. Of course Chisora shouldn't have walked out and up to Haye but ordinarily he'd have been held back and they'd have been separated and both men walk away with pride intact. Take a look at the first Clev v Bellew presser and see how security is in control of that situation. To just criticise Chisora and Haye and get all righteous and say the sports been dragged into the gutter and all the rest of it is easy and lazy. Shame on the Board for taking that option and making a scapegoat out of one man rather than highlighting and questioning the ineptitude of K2 promotions. It wasn't just that event either. How Haye wasn't seriously injured during his ringwalk against Wlad is also beyond me.

especially with a broken toe!!

bfchunk wrote:As much as the board will not want to back track, this is what they should do.:-

They should say they do not agree with the behaviour in Germany
They say they do not agree with how this bill has been brought about in any way

BUT

20000 tickets sold after 1 day show the interest in the fight and for the reason of public demand only, with reluctance, will support the bout

If someone announced Frank Bruno v Mike Tyson III for this summer, that would sell 20,000 tickets instantly (probably more). Doesn't mean it should happen.

As a licence holder, Chisora was bound by the decision of the Board when they suspended his licence following his actions. Haye has not been punished by the Board as he is not a licence holder. Warren has a cob on about multiple things including the actions (or lack of) from the Board in the build up and aftermath of the Vitali fight (Is it not a Managers responsibility to ensure that he knows who the Board reps at the fight are and ensures that they are around when the Home promoter, with a history of nefarious pre-fight antics, pulls the old "we want your hands rewrapped" trick?

By seeking a non BBBC licence, without actually showing any signs of contrition for the Vitali v Chisora debacle, by using the "my poor boy won't have fought for 6 months, he has a living to make" line (Del boy went 10 months between the Sexton and Fury fights and I don't recall seeing him complaining about having to sign on then) and by calling the show "Licensed to Thrill", it can certainly be perceived that he is issuing a direct challenge to the authority of the Board.

The Board have been swift and unequivocal in their response, which ought to be admired, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the makings of this situation. They took a decision over a licence holder and should stand by it, pending the appeal (surely it won't help Del's appeal if in the interim he has fought on a high profile, "unlicensed" show). If they back down, it will render all future disciplinary decisions meaningless, as the punished licence holder could simply "do a Warren" and go down the Luxembourg route.

My sympathies here are not with the high profile players (Chisora, Haye, Booth, Sauerland, Povetkin, Rahman) as their future careers will not be overly hindered by being unable to operate under the auspices of the Board in the future. My concern is for the likes of the undercard fighters, their trainers, the medics and other support-type roles who may feel pressured by their management into taking fights and opportunities at the risk of losing their licences, potential shots at BBBC sanctioned titles and opportunities to fight on BBBC sanctioned cards put on by licensed promoters.

One thing I would like to see the Board do is to exclude medical support staff, cutmen, doctors from potential sanctions - that would be a decent demonstration that, despite their disagreement with the situation, they would not want to jeopordise the health of fighters and therefore not want to dissuade health professionals from taking part. That kind of action would probably gain a lot of public sympathy.

What are the medical requirements for the Luxembourg board of control?

What is there stance on peds?

Who are their officials?

MachoMan09 wrote:The best way for the Board to limit damage and make this story go away is to fast-track Chisora's hearing, give him his licence back and lend their full support to the show. This will make them look weak but it will prevent a precedent from being set

But surely that is setting a precedent in itself?