BoxRec

hoot wrote:liked the bit where bunny, told Rob smith that they are a private limited company, and act as judge jury and executioner (Or words to that effect) how meny times has bunny called on the board for that service.

Indeed. Rather unwise to start throwing 'private limited company' around, IMO. FWP is also a limited company whose accounts for the tax year ending March 2011 listed a shareholders' funds deficit of £1,289,073. These figures are old now, mind. There might very well have been a huge, positive turnaround in 2011/12. SN was also a limited company, of which Warren was the CEO, and which went into administration after a High Court judgement of approx £2m was levelled against it.

It's a shame the debate wasn't given more time. Whenever boxing is given a mainstream audience with an intelligent but unknowing professional journalist handling it, it becomes apparent in seconds what we all know - it's an embarrassing mess which simply can't be justified a lot of the time. My favourite recent example was David Haye on Victoria Derbyshire's show trying to explain (at the time) why his fight with Wlad had fallen through. She asked really basic, sensible questions and he sounded like a tit - because it was all ridiculous.

I stayed up to watch that ! A lot of questions still left unanswered, Robert Smith seemed subdued, maybe because of the threatened legal action, point proved, that the board are controled by the big promoters, who dictate to them whenever they feel like. Why did not smith mention warrens statement after the brawl in Germany that he would never promote a fight between them, then due to the financial rewards changed his mind ? Why did they not mention the threats to ban people involved and the U turn ? Why was the subject of fighters not getting paid on time brought up ? Why was Giles performance in Germany and after not brought up ? Why was Giles not There ? Seems to me like the they both had been advised before by the legal teams of both camps and it had been agreed what could be used, total waste of time.

dalcumly wrote:Does nobody on here think that perhaps the BBB of C should occasionally be represented publicly by the Chairman instead of the General Secretary .
On such an important issue as the future of boxing in this country , and the very nature of the organisation being under threat ,I would have thought it was time for the apparent leader to appear . And if he chooses not to ,we have to ask ourselves why .
For example when the RBS had the computer problem last week , their top man went public to apologise and reassure ,and even gave up his bonus . It's all very well travelling round the world every week , but in times of crisis ( and this is a crisis) ,you have to stand up and be counted .

Robert Smith is the 'leader' of the BBBofC. He is the CEO but they merely refer to him as the 'General Secretary'.

dondada wrote:

hoot wrote:liked the bit where bunny, told Rob smith that they are a private limited company, and act as judge jury and executioner (Or words to that effect) how meny times has bunny called on the board for that service.

Indeed. Rather unwise to start throwing 'private limited company' around, IMO. FWP is also a limited company whose accounts for the tax year ending March 2011 listed a shareholders' funds deficit of £1,289,073. These figures are old now, mind. There might very well have been a huge, positive turnaround in 2011/12. SN was also a limited company, of which Warren was the CEO, and which went into administration after a High Court judgement of approx £2m was levelled against it.

It's a shame the debate wasn't given more time. Whenever boxing is given a mainstream audience with an intelligent but unknowing professional journalist handling it, it becomes apparent in seconds what we all know - it's an embarrassing mess which simply can't be justified a lot of the time. My favourite recent example was David Haye on Victoria Derbyshire's show trying to explain (at the time) why his fight with Wlad had fallen through. She asked really basic, sensible questions and he sounded like a tit - because it was all ridiculous.

Profit and loss reserve account shows loss of £1,989,798 at 31 March 2011. The shareholders funds deficit is lower due to the share premium in the first year which was done to improve the working capital of the company. Indeed they are old but since that year have left sky so be very interesting to see what they look like now.

What annoyed me was the little girly smiles they gave each other just as the camera zoomed in on the presenter. This was a pi** take.

taffytoon wrote:What annoyed me was the little girly smiles they gave each other just as the camera zoomed in on the presenter. This was a pi** take.

Awww, c'mon. Didn't you feel the love?

taffytoon wrote:What annoyed me was the little girly smiles they gave each other just as the camera zoomed in on the presenter. This was a pi** take.

A couple of grown men acting like children. Two of the most influential men in British boxing and they squabble in public like a couple of pre-teens arguing over whose turn it is on the X-Box. I'd love someone to shine a light on their actions (as well as the likes of Bunce, Haye, Chisora, Bruce Baker) and ask them what they truly think about the juvenile pettiness into which this has descended.

I could've filmed a better episode with my iPhone. A pointless three minute debate on the meaning of the word 'withdrawn' with Smith looking like a dick. Also, many inaccuracies our beloved Mr Alleged didn't have time to clear up, such as he is 'promoting' this fight, Haye and Chisora 'spat at each other' etc. Smith also needs to grow some balls. He literally has no arguement. I wouldv'e also like to hear them talk about the 'anyone involved with get their licence remove' nonsense... although Smith would be scared of getting sued.

They may as well read one of our threads out on Newsnight

Chambers2 wrote:They may as well read one of our threads out on Newsnight

x2