BoxRec

It will be interesting to see what the legal stand point on this is under the European Union's restriction of trade law.

Shame I can't make it as off to fight in Brazil that day, but I did promise myself after the DeGale Groves fiasco that I'd never attend a Warren show again.

Poncey wrote:It will be interesting to see what the legal stand point on this is under the European Union's restriction of trade law.

Shame I can't make it as off to fight in Brazil that day, but I did promise myself after the DeGale Groves fiasco that I'd never attend a Warren show again.

You mean cause of the CLeverly fight fell through. I said that after Groves cancelled and lost hotel money.I must be made buying ticket off my mate.

Poncey wrote:It will be interesting to see what the legal stand point on this is under the European Union's restriction of trade law.

Shame I can't make it as off to fight in Brazil that day, but I did promise myself after the DeGale Groves fiasco that I'd never attend a Warren show again.

Where is the restraint of trade? The Board have not said the show can't go ahead, they have refused to sanction it as it features two guys who are not licensed. Can Haye or Chisora demonstrate that they have attempted to apply for a Board licence since retiring and being suspended? I'm no Ally McBeal, but I don't think they'd have much of a case. Would be a little like me taking them to court for not sanctioning my fight down the local Tesco car park, despite me not applying for a licence.

leforge wrote:Who going on here? Am I the only one.

I'll be there...this has the makings of being a top night.

earsjohn wrote:

Poncey wrote:It will be interesting to see what the legal stand point on this is under the European Union's restriction of trade law.

Shame I can't make it as off to fight in Brazil that day, but I did promise myself after the DeGale Groves fiasco that I'd never attend a Warren show again.

Where is the restraint of trade? The Board have not said the show can't go ahead, they have refused to sanction it as it features two guys who are not licensed. Can Haye or Chisora demonstrate that they have attempted to apply for a Board licence since retiring and being suspended? I'm no Ally McBeal, but I don't think they'd have much of a case. Would be a little like me taking them to court for not sanctioning my fight down the local Tesco car park, despite me not applying for a licence.

They have said there will be repercussions for anyone with a Licence working this event. I agree that they can't say that and was surprised their Press Officer allowed it to go out

Poncey wrote:

earsjohn wrote:

Poncey wrote:It will be interesting to see what the legal stand point on this is under the European Union's restriction of trade law.

Shame I can't make it as off to fight in Brazil that day, but I did promise myself after the DeGale Groves fiasco that I'd never attend a Warren show again.

Where is the restraint of trade? The Board have not said the show can't go ahead, they have refused to sanction it as it features two guys who are not licensed. Can Haye or Chisora demonstrate that they have attempted to apply for a Board licence since retiring and being suspended? I'm no Ally McBeal, but I don't think they'd have much of a case. Would be a little like me taking them to court for not sanctioning my fight down the local Tesco car park, despite me not applying for a licence.

They have said there will be repercussions for anyone with a Licence working this event. I agree that they can't say that and was surprised their Press Officer allowed it to go out

What press officer? I'm not taking the mick, I'm genuinely interested - do they have one? They should have a Head of Communications rather than a simple joey. I'd do it though in these circumstances the words 'cheeky c*nts' would probably have slipped in to the statement.

Why can't they say that? Hardly restraint of trade is it? The BBBoC aren't saying they can't box - just not be part of their club as anyone involved in the show is not following the regulations, bringing the sport into disrepute (as the Board sees it) and quite clearly trying to undermine the Board. Licence holders have had plenty of notice of the potential repercussions.

No restraint of trade - Go forth and box for Luxembourg or EBF or whatever else then.

As I've said elsewhere, this development is a great opportunity for the licence holders who have wanted to overthrow the Board for years. Right, off you go then. Be interesting to see where it ends up.

dondada wrote:

Poncey wrote:

earsjohn wrote: Where is the restraint of trade? The Board have not said the show can't go ahead, they have refused to sanction it as it features two guys who are not licensed. Can Haye or Chisora demonstrate that they have attempted to apply for a Board licence since retiring and being suspended? I'm no Ally McBeal, but I don't think they'd have much of a case. Would be a little like me taking them to court for not sanctioning my fight down the local Tesco car park, despite me not applying for a licence.

They have said there will be repercussions for anyone with a Licence working this event. I agree that they can't say that and was surprised their Press Officer allowed it to go out

What press officer? I'm not taking the mick, I'm genuinely interested - do they have one? They should have a Head of Communications rather than a simple joey. I'd do it though in these circumstances the words 'cheeky c*nts' would probably have slipped in to the statement.

Why can't they say that? Hardly restraint of trade is it? The BBBoC aren't saying they can't box - just not be part of their club as anyone involved in the show is not following the regulations, bringing the sport into disrepute (as the Board sees it) and quite clearly trying to undermine the Board. Licence holders have had plenty of notice of the potential repercussions.

No restraint of trade - Go forth and box for Luxembourg or EBF or whatever else then.

As I've said elsewhere, this development is a great opportunity for the licence holders who have wanted to overthrow the Board for years. Right, off you go then. Be interesting to see where it ends up.

I see this being a case of careful what you wish for.

The Board may not be perfect, but a promoter led association would likely have severe repercussions in terms of fighters pay, health and security requirements given that these are the areas that eat into a shows profits and a promoter, by definition is out to maximise profit. This is an opportunity for the Board to review their operations and they should consider open two-way discussions with a range of key stakeholders, but as Block says in the interview, handing over the keys to the kingdom to those in the game purely for self interest will not have a pretty ending.

earsjohn wrote:
I see this being a case of careful what you wish for.

The Board may not be perfect, but a promoter led association would likely have severe repercussions in terms of fighters pay, health and security requirements given that these are the areas that eat into a shows profits and a promoter, by definition is out to maximise profit. This is an opportunity for the Board to review their operations and they should consider open two-way discussions with a range of key stakeholders, but as Block says in the interview, handing over the keys to the kingdom to those in the game purely for self interest will not have a pretty ending.

I was being tongue in cheek Ian. And I agree, they can't say it. That's my point. An employer cannot restrict you from working for another employer of similar nature.

But it gets murky as technically they are still working for the BBoC.

Be interesting to see what their contracts say. But I'm sure IJL has worked for the German Board before whilst still working for the BBoC.

Poncey wrote:I was being tongue in cheek Ian. And I agree, they can't say it. That's my point. An employer cannot restrict you from working for another employer of similar nature.

But it gets murky as technically they are still working for the BBoC.

Be interesting to see what their contracts say. But I'm sure IJL has worked for the German Board before whilst still working for the BBoC.

I'm getting a bit confused here mate. I'm saying the Board CAN say it. Not that their licence holders can't work for someone else - they're not saying that. But if anyone does, they won't be working for the BBBoC again. That seems fair enough to me. Lawyers are going to be rubbing their hands, that's for sure.

Now...I may be talking out my arse here, and please feel free to say so, but this fight is a big deal. In fact it'll be massive. The BBBoC are dead against it and whether they are right or wrong in their stance is down to opinion. But nearer the fight time I can see them come out with a statement that says something like "we aren't happy about this but it's an event that has captured public imagination and for that reason we aren't going to say anymore about it." If they continue to get all uppity the casual fan might be asking why on earth they are trying to bring down the biggest show on UK soil since...oh I don't know, Benn v Eubank 2? They might start to look like they are bitter because they have no control over it.

For those that have had a close relationship with the Board or are more familiar with Bob Smith et al, is this a likely scenario or shall I go back and sit in my corner and rock backwards and forwards with my bit of string mumbling something about everyone coming to get me?!

Passes string

milpool wrote:Now...I may be talking out my arse here, and please feel free to say so, but this fight is a big deal. In fact it'll be massive. The BBBoC are dead against it and whether they are right or wrong in their stance is down to opinion. But nearer the fight time I can see them come out with a statement that says something like "we aren't happy about this but it's an event that has captured public imagination and for that reason we aren't going to say anymore about it." If they continue to get all uppity the casual fan might be asking why on earth they are trying to bring down the biggest show on UK soil since...oh I don't know, Benn v Eubank 2? They might start to look like they are bitter because they have no control over it.

For those that have had a close relationship with the Board or are more familiar with Bob Smith et al, is this a likely scenario or shall I go back and sit in my corner and rock backwards and forwards with my bit of string mumbling something about everyone coming to get me?!

Has it really captured the public's imagination? Or just a certain section of 'boxing fans' with low standards? I use the term 'fans' for want of a better term. No true fan of the sport can support this debacle, surely?

Friends and colleagues I've chatted to about this either don't care (not interested in boxing), or are pretty disgusted by the whole thing due to the media coverage they've seen and heard.

Biggest show since Eubank vs Benn 2 in 1993?

It is no where near as big as Tyson vs Francis, Hatton vs Tszyu etc.

after all the hype i see the fight being a damp squib

lacollier883 wrote:after all the hype i see the fight being a damp squib

I hope neither gets an injury as their be no refunds due to world title n the bill.