BoxRec

The Insider wrote:

desperados wrote:if the BBBoC carry otu with these threats it will bite them in the ass in the courts. Read Warrens statements on the matter, he makes a good legal arguement and he's the kind of guy who would sue his own mother.

Where can I find these statements pal? I watched the Bruce Baker interview Rob Waterman conducted on YouTube and he made a very good argument. This was before the lbf was kicked out of the EBU though.

alot of stuff about it on Franks websie, heres the open letter is was reffering to:

http://www.allegedly.com/news/press-r ... ement.html

Thanks for the link. Doesn't Bruces argument fall flat with the Board and EBU now not recognising the LBF though? Do we know if legal proceedings have started and has a vote amongst the PBPA and its members been ordered yet?

It's all goo threatening to sue but have you the money to go to court!

The Insider wrote:Thanks for the link. Doesn't Bruces argument fall flat with the Board and EBU now not recognising the LBF though? Do we know if legal proceedings have started and has a vote amongst the PBPA and its members been ordered yet?

i think the strongest legal argument is that the BBBoC dont have legitimate grounds to just start removing licences. It's a bit like an employer sacking people in reaction to a strike.

If for example you were a ringside doctor who regularly works on BBBoC shows and you work the Haye-Chisora fight, and then face sanctions liek that from BBBoC i'd imagine you woudl have a very good case if you took it to court. At the end of the day it's legally a licenced show, and medical proffessionals duty to look after the welfare of the fighters is much greater than picking a side over the tit-for-tat arguument between Warren & BBBoC. And for alot of the other 'smaller fish' it is about making a living and paying a mortgage.

BBBoC made a mess of this situation by not giving chisora a ban, they can't take it out on the others just tryign to make a living. Like Warren said, regardless of the Warren-BBBoC dispute, thats irrelevent to a guy like Kevin Mitchell, who could be faced with the decision of making a very good pay day in front of a packed out Upton Park crowd, at the expense of maybe losing his licence.

Isn't the breaking of the boards rules even after repeated warnings and explicit advice on the consequences legitimate enough to suspend/withdraw a licence?

Also the analogy using the doctor doesn't quite stick for me as the board aren't his employer, the promoter is and he can continue to work for his employer when ever he wants in these future.

The board aren't stopping anyone earning a living from the proposed show but have stipulated that anyone working on this show will not be able to work for them after. Its this part that the board could be in trouble with I reckon. We could definitely do with this part clarifying.

That part does seem rather intimidating and threatening but they have made every licence holder aware of their intentions so surely the owness is on the individual to weigh things up and act accordingly to their set of particular circumstances.

desperados wrote:

The Insider wrote:Thanks for the link. Doesn't Bruces argument fall flat with the Board and EBU now not recognising the LBF though? Do we know if legal proceedings have started and has a vote amongst the PBPA and its members been ordered yet?

i think the strongest legal argument is that the BBBoC dont have legitimate grounds to just start removing licences. It's a bit like an employer sacking people in reaction to a strike.

If for example you were a ringside doctor who regularly works on BBBoC shows and you work the Haye-Chisora fight, and then face sanctions liek that from BBBoC i'd imagine you woudl have a very good case if you took it to court. At the end of the day it's legally a licenced show, and medical proffessionals duty to look after the welfare of the fighters is much greater than picking a side over the tit-for-tat arguument between Warren & BBBoC. And for alot of the other 'smaller fish' it is about making a living and paying a mortgage.

BBBoC made a mess of this situation by not giving chisora a ban, they can't take it out on the others just tryign to make a living. Like Warren said, regardless of the Warren-BBBoC dispute, thats irrelevent to a guy like Kevin Mitchell, who could be faced with the decision of making a very good pay day in front of a packed out Upton Park crowd, at the expense of maybe losing his licence.

Doctors are not license holders

jonny wrote:

desperados wrote:

The Insider wrote:Thanks for the link. Doesn't Bruces argument fall flat with the Board and EBU now not recognising the LBF though? Do we know if legal proceedings have started and has a vote amongst the PBPA and its members been ordered yet?

i think the strongest legal argument is that the BBBoC dont have legitimate grounds to just start removing licences. It's a bit like an employer sacking people in reaction to a strike.

If for example you were a ringside doctor who regularly works on BBBoC shows and you work the Haye-Chisora fight, and then face sanctions liek that from BBBoC i'd imagine you woudl have a very good case if you took it to court. At the end of the day it's legally a licenced show, and medical proffessionals duty to look after the welfare of the fighters is much greater than picking a side over the tit-for-tat arguument between Warren & BBBoC. And for alot of the other 'smaller fish' it is about making a living and paying a mortgage.

BBBoC made a mess of this situation by not giving chisora a ban, they can't take it out on the others just tryign to make a living. Like Warren said, regardless of the Warren-BBBoC dispute, thats irrelevent to a guy like Kevin Mitchell, who could be faced with the decision of making a very good pay day in front of a packed out Upton Park crowd, at the expense of maybe losing his licence.

Doctors are not license holders

it's not confined to a licence, it extends to membership too. I'm not sure if doctors are members but the BBBoC will have some kind of a contract with doctors.

Boxrec are refusing to recognise Haye-chisora because of the threat. (I think some of the guys who run Boxrec have some kind of relationship with the BBBoC they don't want to jeopordise).

When you actually take boxing out of the equation it becomes a little clearer to me.....

Man has owned an established off licence for 50 years. Another new off licence opens opposite. The established owner tells his customers "if you use that shop opposite, you'll never set foot in here again".

Now would you have grounds to take the owner to court? I have no idea but reckon you could.

A rather bizarre analogy there but not that different in many ways. (just ignore it if you think its stupid) :)

The Insider wrote:When you actually take boxing out of the equation it becomes a little clearer to me.....

Man has owned an established off licence for 50 years. Another new off licence opens opposite. The established owner tells his customers "if you use that shop opposite, you'll never set foot in here again".

Now would you have grounds to take the owner to court? I have no idea but reckon you could.

A rather bizarre analogy there but not that different in many ways. (just ignore it if you think its stupid) :)

What about if the established off licence holder had some one start selling beer and spirits within his own shop?
Surely the established off licence holder could say if you want to sell booze go and open your own shop across the road(Luxembourg)

Coco wrote:

The Insider wrote:When you actually take boxing out of the equation it becomes a little clearer to me.....

Man has owned an established off licence for 50 years. Another new off licence opens opposite. The established owner tells his customers "if you use that shop opposite, you'll never set foot in here again".

Now would you have grounds to take the owner to court? I have no idea but reckon you could.

A rather bizarre analogy there but not that different in many ways. (just ignore it if you think its stupid) :)

What about if the established off licence holder had some one start selling beer and spirits within his own shop?
Surely the established off licence holder could say if you want to sell booze go and open your own shop across the road(Luxembourg)

That's not quite the same is it? The BBBOC doesn't have a monopoly on who can stick a show on. If they were a statutory body you example would hold up very well.

The board would have no problem if this fight took place on an EBF show if they want to fight in Britain or in Luxembourg if they want to fight abroad.
But they clearly should have a say who fights on their own shows.

The Insider wrote:

Coco wrote:

The Insider wrote:When you actually take boxing out of the equation it becomes a little clearer to me.....

Man has owned an established off licence for 50 years. Another new off licence opens opposite. The established owner tells his customers "if you use that shop opposite, you'll never set foot in here again".

Now would you have grounds to take the owner to court? I have no idea but reckon you could.

A rather bizarre analogy there but not that different in many ways. (just ignore it if you think its stupid) :)

What about if the established off licence holder had some one start selling beer and spirits within his own shop?
Surely the established off licence holder could say if you want to sell booze go and open your own shop across the road(Luxembourg)

That's not quite the same is it? The BBBOC doesn't have a monopoly on who can stick a show on. If they were a statutory body you example would hold up very well.

to be honest i think using your analogy if it was taken to court they would laugh at it and say to the off licenser words to the effect of if you want to cut your nose off to spite your face then thats up to you , and the same could be said in my opinion with the whole issue we have here with the board .

basically if boxers fight on other shows (ie the haye v chisora show) and the board tell them they are withdrawing their license , they then just form another board , all its doing is giving the people an option and therfore if the board was an off license its losing customers so to speak , its really as i said earlier a predicament that the board can come out of winning , they either cause a split forming another board or they dont set an example and therfor lose any authority they ever had .

one thing is for certain , it needs whatever decision to be made quickly as possible so that british boxing just moves on and hopefully its all forgotten about , i certainly wouldnt want to be the man to make the decision though .

jonny wrote:

desperados wrote:

The Insider wrote:Thanks for the link. Doesn't Bruces argument fall flat with the Board and EBU now not recognising the LBF though? Do we know if legal proceedings have started and has a vote amongst the PBPA and its members been ordered yet?

i think the strongest legal argument is that the BBBoC dont have legitimate grounds to just start removing licences. It's a bit like an employer sacking people in reaction to a strike.

If for example you were a ringside doctor who regularly works on BBBoC shows and you work the Haye-Chisora fight, and then face sanctions liek that from BBBoC i'd imagine you woudl have a very good case if you took it to court. At the end of the day it's legally a licenced show, and medical proffessionals duty to look after the welfare of the fighters is much greater than picking a side over the tit-for-tat arguument between Warren & BBBoC. And for alot of the other 'smaller fish' it is about making a living and paying a mortgage.

BBBoC made a mess of this situation by not giving chisora a ban, they can't take it out on the others just tryign to make a living. Like Warren said, regardless of the Warren-BBBoC dispute, thats irrelevent to a guy like Kevin Mitchell, who could be faced with the decision of making a very good pay day in front of a packed out Upton Park crowd, at the expense of maybe losing his licence.

Doctors are not license holders

THERES DOCTORS ON AREA COUNCILS

desperados wrote:Boxrec are refusing to recognise Haye-chisora because of the threat.

dondada wrote:

desperados wrote:Boxrec are refusing to recognise Haye-chisora because of the threat.

I like this myth

The Insider wrote:

rhino222 wrote:yes but they will be stopping you earning in the boundaries of this country, why should the average man have to travel to europe to work. of course i realise this will only be the case if the show is a one off...but if it becomes regular then the BBB of C will diminish to an insignificant nothing.

You've already said it mate....if.

You won't have to travel to Europe. You can become a lux box member and have fights whenever they are arranged for you with this organisation. You just gotta wait till your promoter puts his next show on and he contacts your manager. If you have been warned and warned again I can't see as you have an argument really.

Yes but surely if this happened you will only be able to fight opponents from the same stable, as for example if a Hearn fighter fought an allegedly one on a lbf bill, they too would then risk being banned by the bbboc as well. So the only options are, we have 2 boards of control like darts where one set of fighters never fight each other, or all promoters turn against the board to set up a new body (which isn't going to happen) or the bbboc back down.

Plenty of other promoters in Bruces PBPA.

The Law wrote:

dondada wrote:

desperados wrote:Boxrec are refusing to recognise Haye-chisora because of the threat.

I like this myth

set me straight then? It was discussed in the 'current scene' forum im sure someoen said it was because admins at boxrec had links to peopel on the BBBoC.

Why else is a licenced fight not listed on Boxrec?

desperados wrote:
set me straight then? It was discussed in the 'current scene' forum im sure someoen said it was because admins at boxrec had links to peopel on the BBBoC.

Why else is a licenced fight not listed on Boxrec?

My unofficial take on it is this - the whole affair is a load of bollocks and, perhaps, the site doesn't want to been seen as supporting those who are undermining the authority of the BBBoC for their own ends. As I said though, this is completely my own opinion.

The results will go up though, I suspect. If the promotion goes ahead.

Law ,

im pretty sure it was originally stated about people from boxrec who are license holders (i cant remember who stated it but was a mod ),
about the original statement from the board mentioning those involved in promoting and advertising the event , because when i first read it i remember thinking " well how on earth can they punish boxrec " but it was then pointed out that those involved in boxrec who hold licenses with the board could be included in those who will apparantly have their licenses withdrawn .

if i can find the thread witht the comment on i will link it here but theres been a lot of threads on this subject so im not holding my breath , but it was 100% definately said .

The Law wrote:

dondada wrote:

desperados wrote:Boxrec are refusing to recognise Haye-chisora because of the threat.

I like this myth

There is more of a threat from allegedly promotions for not recognising the show then anything else.

safeerah wrote:There is more of a threat from allegedly promotions for not recognising the show then anything else.

Simply not true. What would the threat be, exactly? They've got much more important things to worry about than whether their promotion is listed on a website.

I don't think FW is bothered about whether its recognised here or not. The fights selling itself and tickets sales speak volumes.

I think its now safe to say that the show is going ahead and I think the board are now resigned to it. The interesting stuff starts when the dust settles from the show.

I'm still no nearer finding out what's going on but I sought a bit of legal advice and the main talking point was the terms you held your licence under I.e reg 4.12 and now the lux fed is no longer recognised by the board or EBU it looks like its advantage BBBOC.

desperados wrote:set me straight then? It was discussed in the 'current scene' forum im sure someoen said it was because admins at boxrec had links to peopel on the BBBoC.

Why else is a licenced fight not listed on Boxrec?

I keep hearing 'it's a licensed show' but it's level of licensing is on a par with what most people would consider unlicensed.

It's licensed by a rogue body which now no longer has the backing of the only thing which gave it a modicum of credibility.

You may not realise this but the EBF, IBA etc is licensed. They are licensed by themselves as is the LBF.

Now would you want EBF and IBA fights adding to Boxrec?

If Boxrec record this 'alternatively licensed' fight, does that mean that they will recognise all other 'alternatively licensed' fights? Of course not. Boxrec is merely following its rule of not recognising non-BBBofC licensed fights in Britain.