BoxRec

Wake up call wrote:That's the term allegedly has used if the board try and stand in his way.

earsjohn wrote:

Wake up call wrote:That's the term allegedly has used if the board try and stand in his way.

And thats the bit that baffled me most about Fwanks statement last week. It read something like, I can put on this fight, it is legal, the BBBC cant stop me, they've done the same in the past with licensing fighters on foreign shows, i don't need the BBBC to run shows but if you threaten to withold my license I will sue you.

Erm, you have said what you are doing is legal and you don't need a UK licence, so the restraint of trade argument is dead in the water. And as for future shows, you've already proved you don't need a UK licence to operate, so what are you bleating about? You don't want to be bound by your licence conditions in being involved in this fight, but you don't want to lose your licence? Very much a case of having your cake and eating it.

leforge wrote:

earsjohn wrote:

Wake up call wrote:That's the term allegedly has used if the board try and stand in his way.

And thats the bit that baffled me most about Fwanks statement last week. It read something like, I can put on this fight, it is legal, the BBBC cant stop me, they've done the same in the past with licensing fighters on foreign shows, i don't need the BBBC to run shows but if you threaten to withold my license I will sue you.

Erm, you have said what you are doing is legal and you don't need a UK licence, so the restraint of trade argument is dead in the water. And as for future shows, you've already proved you don't need a UK licence to operate, so what are you bleating about? You don't want to be bound by your licence conditions in being involved in this fight, but you don't want to lose your licence? Very much a case of having your cake and eating it.

Agree with that, he needs UK licence to keep fighters happy. People want to fight for British title.

Adamj1987 wrote:

leforge wrote:

earsjohn wrote:
And thats the bit that baffled me most about Fwanks statement last week. It read something like, I can put on this fight, it is legal, the BBBC cant stop me, they've done the same in the past with licensing fighters on foreign shows, i don't need the BBBC to run shows but if you threaten to withold my license I will sue you.

Erm, you have said what you are doing is legal and you don't need a UK licence, so the restraint of trade argument is dead in the water. And as for future shows, you've already proved you don't need a UK licence to operate, so what are you bleating about? You don't want to be bound by your licence conditions in being involved in this fight, but you don't want to lose your licence? Very much a case of having your cake and eating it.

Agree with that, he needs UK licence to keep fighters happy. People want to fight for British title.

Luxemberg british title?

earsjohn wrote:

Wake up call wrote:That's the term allegedly has used if the board try and stand in his way.

And thats the bit that baffled me most about Fwanks statement last week. It read something like, I can put on this fight, it is legal, the BBBC cant stop me, they've done the same in the past with licensing fighters on foreign shows, i don't need the BBBC to run shows but if you threaten to withold my license I will sue you.

Erm, you have said what you are doing is legal and you don't need a UK licence, so the restraint of trade argument is dead in the water. And as for future shows, you've already proved you don't need a UK licence to operate, so what are you bleating about? You don't want to be bound by your licence conditions in being involved in this fight, but you don't want to lose your licence? Very much a case of having your cake and eating it.

phil5555 wrote:

Wake up call wrote:In answer to Jeff's original question...absolutely nothing.

The board, EBU etc are all self appointed bodies as are the so-called 'unlicensed' organisations. None of them has any more legal right to run boxing than any other, which is why this Lux Box situation has been able to come around. The board are not a statutory body so they cannot prevent ANYONE staging shows.

By this same token, the board cannot have a say in which long established self appointed bodies agree to support others. Therefore, if say the EBF or IBA went to the EBU for an affiliation, the could easily get to this imaginary 'it's licensed because it's part of the EBU' crap everyone seems to have been sucked in by. If that was the case they would soon be in the same position the board is in now and that is they would be a self appointed body affiliated to another self appointed body/ bodies.

Of course, any move by the 'unlicensed crew' would be vetoed by the board and due to their long standing relationship, the EBU would probably reject the 'unlicensed crews' proposal but that's not to say it couldn't happen.

What people on here seem to continually fail to grasp is the fact that there is no such thing as 'unlicensed boxing'. Because none of the boxing bodies are created by law, none of them has any more clout than any other. It's just some have been around longer and therefore seem to have more justification to exist because of their longevity and track record. The long standing ones call the new ones unlicensed simply because they are not licensed by them. It's like BMW saying Mazdas are 'unengined cars' because they don't use BMW engines.

If Mickey and Minnie Mouse started up a business in 1929 and affiliated it to the Donald Duck union, would it mean that their business had any more reason to exist than the new company set up in 2005 by Count Duckular? Of course not and it shouldn't prevent Count Duckular being able to join the Donald Duck union either.

In terms of the Luxembourg board, the only thing in this country that they have over a so-called 'unlicensed' company is their affiliation to a made up body (Donald Duck union), EBU. This is made up bodies playing games with other made up bodies and excluding new made up bodies.

Now, I'm a supporter of the BBBofC and do not think the Chisora v Haye fight should happen, but I'm also wise enough to understand that without statutory powers the board cannot stop it. They cannot stop any sanctioning body putting shows because none of them (board included) are really boards, they are PLCs and trying to stop a PLC from one EU nation operating in another is illegal.

The big issue is if the board are stupid enough to try and stand in the way of this fight, they will get sued for restraint of trade and as a PLC will limited resources and no legal justification they will be lambs to the slaughter.

Very good post