BoxRec

big lennox wrote:Allegedly and Allegedly Channel could find themselves specialised and then marginalised. They could end up having their own fighters with Luxembourg licenses fighting only foreign opposition on a channel with not the biggest viewing figures in the world. The other promoters like, Hennessy, Maloney, Hearn, Hatton, Coldwell could persuade fighter to join them by securing them legitimate BBBofC licenses and greater tv exposure. It will be fascinating to see how all this pans out.

grub wrote:As pointed out by a fair few people, it leaves the other boxers, trainers etc portentially involved in the bill with a big decision to make.

To my mind, at the minute its better-the-devil-you-know.

I wonder if Boxing News and Boxing Monthly will run adverts for the bill?

rhino222 wrote:exactly...especially as FW bailed them out financially, if they ban all concerned then FW will just promote under the luxembourg banner for all his UK shows......we are all EC brothers united, the BBB of C will need to be careful they are not going against 'equal opportunities' law, and i have a feeling they are!!

watch this space...FW could sue them for that reason..

iamasadlittleboy wrote:

rhino222 wrote:exactly...especially as FW bailed them out financially, if they ban all concerned then FW will just promote under the luxembourg banner for all his UK shows......we are all EC brothers united, the BBB of C will need to be careful they are not going against 'equal opportunities' law, and i have a feeling they are!!

watch this space...FW could sue them for that reason..

They allowed FW to have a license despite the whole Calzaghe situation...I think that's them "evens".

greenyox3 wrote:This gives the likes of Burns and Mitchell a decision to make. Do they take the big fight (and payday), but risk losing their licence?

kingfinn wrote:

greenyox3 wrote:This gives the likes of Burns and Mitchell a decision to make. Do they take the big fight (and payday), but risk losing their licence?

I should imagine it would be illegal for the BBBofC to discriminate or victimise people through association so their stance is a bag of wind. Also they arent exactly rich so i doubt they can afford to ban many fighters or promoters.

kingfinn wrote:Fighters above British level dont need the BBBofC infact the the BBBofC probably needs the fee's from their big money fights so they are shooting themselves in the foot. If they dont want to sanction one of the biggest promoters in the UK they are in danger of being side lined other organisations can be used or founded and other promoters may follow suite in order to get a better deal.

rapid2 wrote:How is that going to work?

kingfinn wrote:

greenyox3 wrote:This gives the likes of Burns and Mitchell a decision to make. Do they take the big fight (and payday), but risk losing their licence?

I should imagine it would be illegal for the BBBofC to discriminate or victimise people through association so their stance is a bag of wind.

dondada wrote:You know what? I feel sorry for Del Boy in all this.

slapbangwhallop wrote:I'd have more sympathy with the BBBoC if they were a transparent democratically elected organisation!

They didnt seem to have an issue when they strong armed the Irish board into having British officials last month for Rogan-Fury.

dondada wrote:

kingfinn wrote:

greenyox3 wrote:This gives the likes of Burns and Mitchell a decision to make. Do they take the big fight (and payday), but risk losing their licence?

I should imagine it would be illegal for the BBBofC to discriminate or victimise people through association so their stance is a bag of wind.

They've made a very clear statement on how anyone involved in the show would be in breach of their rules and outlined the potential consequences of their actions - well in advance too. Hardly victimisation.

You know what? I feel sorry for Del Boy in all this.

kingfinn wrote:
It would be victimisation they cant ban fighters for being on undercards because FW manages them and they want to ban him. You're not even allowed to ban a girl from the scouts these days. The best they could do is refuse to work with Allegedly channel for which FW can go elsewhere for officials, they cant take boxers licenses away for being on the channel or linked with Allegedly channel fights. I guarantee you it would be illegal i dont care what their statement says.

kingfinn wrote:

dondada wrote:

kingfinn wrote:
I should imagine it would be illegal for the BBBofC to discriminate or victimise people through association so their stance is a bag of wind.

They've made a very clear statement on how anyone involved in the show would be in breach of their rules and outlined the potential consequences of their actions - well in advance too. Hardly victimisation.

You know what? I feel sorry for Del Boy in all this.

It would be victimisation they cant ban fighters for being on undercards because FW manages them and they want to ban him. You're not even allowed to ban a girl from the scouts these days. The best they could do is refuse to work with Allegedly channel for which FW can go elsewhere for officials, they cant take boxers licenses away for being on the channel or linked with Allegedly channel fights. I guarantee you it would be illegal i dont care what their statement says.

dondada wrote:

kingfinn wrote:Fighters above British level dont need the BBBofC infact the the BBBofC probably needs the fee's from their big money fights so they are shooting themselves in the foot. If they dont want to sanction one of the biggest promoters in the UK they are in danger of being side lined other organisations can be used or founded and other promoters may follow suite in order to get a better deal.

Say you're right.

Would that be good for boxing or bad for boxing?

What do you think the Board should do?

CharlesListon wrote:I'm a regular reader and irregular poster on here and I'm fully aware that many posters have issues with the BBBOC.
I'm also sure that FW could well have a plan to set up an independent commision, hosted by the Luxemburg Boxing Federation and set himself up as a kind of Dana White business style promoter. He has the medium now in Allegedly channel to do so.
However, before we condemn the BBBOC..... how many shows have you heard of that have been sanctioned by Luxemburg? Are FW and the Lux Fed/board (whatever they are) able to provide the same insurance cover and medical requirements that were in place to assist Spencer Oliver and Gilbert Eastman?
If so, where will the medical staff come from.... Medico's interested in boxing and willing to support it are few and far between and already have BBBOC licences and therefore wont be working this show.
I'm not saying there will be issues similar to the Spencer and Gilbert instances on this show, thankfully they are few and far between, but if this is the thin end of the wedge its worth considering.
Also for those license holders considering risking their BBBOC tickets for this may want to consider speaking to Ricky Hatton, Joe Calzaghe, Tony Bellew and James DeGale plus a good few other less well known guys over the years about the loyalty and service that FW has provided.
The BBBOC are 100% right on this, anyone who thinks that Derek's and David's behaviour didnt deserve some kind of punishment clearly dont have the best interest of boxing as a whole at heart.
This is about boxing. An honourable sport. Anything less just isnt boxing. There is always the option that derek and david just sort a straightner out.