BoxRec

bigger the shows bigger the Bond .Small grass roots promoters have to put up ten k bigger tv promoters have to have a bigger bond.

jonp wrote:bigger the shows bigger the Bond .Small grass roots promoters have to put up ten k bigger tv promoters have to have a bigger bond.

And is this bond withheld until all the fighters have been paid?

Yeh its not quick to get back even if you ask for it back the next day takes a few weeks and they will check that every one has been paid first.

jonp wrote:Yeh its not quick to get back even if you ask for it back the next day takes a few weeks and they will check that every one has been paid first.

I'm getting a feeling here that Boxer A has been paid what he is owed from Promoter B in agreement to his signed contract. The rest is what you and I would call fiddle money.

And as we all know a verbal contract isn't worth the paper its wrote on, hence the lack of action from the BBBofC.

jonp wrote:Yeh its not quick to get back even if you ask for it back the next day takes a few weeks and they will check that every one has been paid first.

Not so I'm afraid. The bond is to cover the sanction fees which the Promoter has to pay to the Board. Regretably, the Board does not take any precautions to cover the Boxers.
The Board has a duty to the Boxers by ensuring that only fit and proper persons are issued with a licence to promote boxing contests. However, if Boxers, or more specifically their managers, do not complain to the General Secretary of the Board if the Boxer is not paid within 7 days as is mandatoraly required by virtue of Regulation 5.17: Then the Board cannot take disciplinary action against a Promoter who repeatedly fails to pay Boxers. A one off or very occasional late payment may be forgiven, or result in a warning, but repeated very late or non-payment could result in a Promoter being stripped of their licence to promote contests, and rightly so.

5.17 Non-payment of a purse to a Boxer by a Promoter MUST be reported to the General Secretary by the agrieved Boxer or his Manager immediately and in any event NOT MORE than 14 days after the date of the Contest.

Didn't he bail out the board not so long ago???

Dont the fighters send out a court order???

I'd be seriously worried of him winding the company down.

hurlock wrote:Didn't he bail out the board not so long ago???

Dont the fighters send out a court order???

I'd be seriously worried of him winding the company down.

This is where you all make a mistake.

Everyone confuses a Promotional Company with a licenced Promoter. They are two totally seperate legal entities.

BY virtue of Regulation 9.1 no company, partnership, charity or organisation can hold a Promoters licence. A licence to promote boxing contests can only be issued to an individual. Therefore, Matchroom Limited and F... W..... Promotions Limited cannot and do not hold a Promoters licence. They purport to promote the careers of Boxers. Read my earlier post.

It is the promoter (the man himself) who MUST pay the Boxer not the promotional company. No promotional company holds any licence issued by the Board these companies have no affiliation to the Board whatsoever. They are private limited companies and totally separate legal entities to the individuals who hold the Promoter's licence.

In the event that any of these companies go "tits up" or even stays in business, if a Boxer does not get paid, It is the individual Promoter who is liable and who the Boxer must sue.

Get legal advice but not from your ordinary high street solicitor, they don't have a clue. Go to a solicitor who specialises in Sports Law such as Mel Goldberg. Google him.

Good advice Mel

taffytoon wrote:

leforge wrote:

danconnollyeire wrote:To be fair you send an invoice for expect payment 30 days NET

You start a job on the 1st you don't get paid til the 30th

BUT Bunny has a history!

Board rules are within 7 days not 30 days!

But don't let facts get in the way Dan how the hell you can compare a bloody invoice to a boxer getting paid is ludicrous. Put your brain in gear before posting complete tosh. And FYI boxers don't get holiday pay either

Your obsession with me is fvcking strange replying to everyone of my posts

Rumpole wrote:

hurlock wrote:Didn't he bail out the board not so long ago???

Dont the fighters send out a court order???

I'd be seriously worried of him winding the company down.

This is where you all make a mistake.

Everyone confuses a Promotional Company with a licenced Promoter. They are two totally seperate legal entities.

BY virtue of Regulation 9.1 no company, partnership, charity or organisation can hold a Promoters licence. A licence to promote boxing contests can only be issued to an individual. Therefore, Matchroom Limited and F... W..... Promotions Limited cannot and do not hold a Promoters licence. They purport to promote the careers of Boxers. Read my earlier post.

It is the promoter (the man himself) who MUST pay the Boxer not the promotional company. No promotional company holds any licence issued by the Board these companies have no affiliation to the Board whatsoever. They are private limited companies and totally separate legal entities to the individuals who hold the Promoter's licence.

In the event that any of these companies go "tits up" or even stays in business, if a Boxer does not get paid, It is the individual Promoter who is liable and who the Boxer must sue.

Get legal advice but not from your ordinary high street solicitor, they don't have a clue. Go to a solicitor who specialises in Sports Law such as Mel Goldberg. Google him.

Thanks for clearing that up Rumplole. I always though this was the case and could never understand when Sports Network folded everyone though FWs Debt was cleared.

The Insider wrote:

Rumpole wrote:

hurlock wrote:Didn't he bail out the board not so long ago???

Dont the fighters send out a court order???

I'd be seriously worried of him winding the company down.

This is where you all make a mistake.

Everyone confuses a Promotional Company with a licenced Promoter. They are two totally seperate legal entities.

BY virtue of Regulation 9.1 no company, partnership, charity or organisation can hold a Promoters licence. A licence to promote boxing contests can only be issued to an individual. Therefore, Matchroom Limited and F... W..... Promotions Limited cannot and do not hold a Promoters licence. They purport to promote the careers of Boxers. Read my earlier post.

It is the promoter (the man himself) who MUST pay the Boxer not the promotional company. No promotional company holds any licence issued by the Board these companies have no affiliation to the Board whatsoever. They are private limited companies and totally separate legal entities to the individuals who hold the Promoter's licence.

In the event that any of these companies go "tits up" or even stays in business, if a Boxer does not get paid, It is the individual Promoter who is liable and who the Boxer must sue.

Get legal advice but not from your ordinary high street solicitor, they don't have a clue. Go to a solicitor who specialises in Sports Law such as Mel Goldberg. Google him.

Thanks for clearing that up Rumplole. I always though this was the case and could never understand when Sports Network folded everyone though FWs Debt was cleared.

My pal Rumpole will confirm but there WILL have been other debts the company was liable for which became much harder to get when it folded, such as the amount the Millennium Stadium had to go to court for.

Calzaghe, as you know, won a High Court judgement for the money against the individual concerned.

Yeah I think I can kinda grasp that. I guess it's harder to get your money when the person responsible for paying you is folding his companies in an attempt to prove how skint he is.

My pal Rumpole will confirm but there WILL have been other debts the company was liable for which became much harder to get when it folded, such as the amount the Millennium Stadium had to go to court for.

Calzaghe, as you know, won a High Court judgement for the money against the individual concerned.

I did not see any Boxers on the list of creditors for Sports Network but if they had made a claim they claimed against the wrong party.

Joe Calzaghe was a different matter. Fights which take place outside the U.K. and which are not sanctioned by the BBBoC are not subject to Board rules. True, the Boxer must obtain permission from the Board to fight on a bill outside the jurisdiction but that is all.

If there are any Boxers who thought that they were owed money by Sports Network Limited for fights in the U.K., they were not. I am not aware of any unpaid Boxers who had a contract with Sports Network and to the best of my knowledge, Bunny paid all of the Boxer's purses other than Joe Calzaghe but I could be wrong.

According to the official Statement of Affairs the Millenium Stadium in Cardiff are creditors in the sum of £144,182.16. The total liabilities were £5,769,751.63.

If you want a copy of the Statement of Affairs Ian, give me a bell.

spudder56 wrote:

SteveDow wrote:This has now become farcical and totally unacceptable. The Board need to look at the rules with a view to proposing some changes which guarantee that the fighter will be paid as soon as possible. My own thoughts are that the promoter should have to deposit the money in an escrow account and that money then be transferred to the fighter once the fight has taken place. If the fighter does not fight then the money just goes back to the promoter. This would be a fair way of resolving the situation.

Very good idea the board should implement this straight away

The rules at present don't go far enough towards guaranteeing a fighter will be paid promptly and my proposed solution would guarantee that as if the promoter refused to deposit the money into the escrow account then the fight would not be able to take place. Even if there was a dispute after the fight as to whether the fighter should be paid (e.g. in the Harrison v Haye debacle) there could be a rule inserted which states that any dispute would be resolved by the Board within a 7 day period and the monies transferred to the winning party.

I genuinely don't see why the above could not be implemented. Promoters may argue that they would not have the cash to pay the money into the escrow account before the fight but if they only had to do this a day or two before then surely they would have received the money from ticket sales and in relation to the bigger PPV fights some sort of agreement would need to be reached with the PPV provider with regard to receipt of monies from PPV sales.

To me the above is a no brainer.

SteveDow wrote:

spudder56 wrote:

SteveDow wrote:This has now become farcical and totally unacceptable. The Board need to look at the rules with a view to proposing some changes which guarantee that the fighter will be paid as soon as possible. My own thoughts are that the promoter should have to deposit the money in an escrow account and that money then be transferred to the fighter once the fight has taken place. If the fighter does not fight then the money just goes back to the promoter. This would be a fair way of resolving the situation.

Very good idea the board should implement this straight away

The rules at present don't go far enough towards guaranteeing a fighter will be paid promptly and my proposed solution would guarantee that as if the promoter refused to deposit the money into the escrow account then the fight would not be able to take place. Even if there was a dispute after the fight as to whether the fighter should be paid (e.g. in the Harrison v Haye debacle) there could be a rule inserted which states that any dispute would be resolved by the Board within a 7 day period and the monies transferred to the winning party.

I genuinely don't see why the above could not be implemented. Promoters may argue that they would not have the cash to pay the money into the escrow account before the fight but if they only had to do this a day or two before then surely they would have received the money from ticket sales and in relation to the bigger PPV fights some sort of agreement would need to be reached with the PPV provider with regard to receipt of monies from PPV sales.


To me the above is a no brainer.

X2

Good idea in theory and could work on bigger shows or where the purse is bigger than 3k. It would grind smalll hall shows to a halt though. Not sure FW would go for it and seeing as the Board are shit scared of him it won't happen I'm afraid.

Rumpole wrote:

jonp wrote:Yeh its not quick to get back even if you ask for it back the next day takes a few weeks and they will check that every one has been paid first.

Not so I'm afraid. The bond is to cover the sanction fees which the Promoter has to pay to the Board. Regretably, the Board does not take any precautions to cover the Boxers.
The Board has a duty to the Boxers by ensuring that only fit and proper persons are issued with a licence to promote boxing contests. However, if Boxers, or more specifically their managers, do not complain to the General Secretary of the Board if the Boxer is not paid within 7 days as is mandatoraly required by virtue of Regulation 5.17: Then the Board cannot take disciplinary action against a Promoter who repeatedly fails to pay Boxers. A one off or very occasional late payment may be forgiven, or result in a warning, but repeated very late or non-payment could result in a Promoter being stripped of their licence to promote contests, and rightly so.

5.17 Non-payment of a purse to a Boxer by a Promoter MUST be reported to the General Secretary by the agrieved Boxer or his Manager immediately and in any event NOT MORE than 14 days after the date of the Contest.

If is very difficult to bite the hand that feeds you, even if they are late paying you, could result in you not getting work at all.

The Insider wrote:Good idea in theory and could work on bigger shows or where the purse is bigger than 3k. It would grind smalll hall shows to a halt though. Not sure FW would go for it and seeing as the Board are shit scared of him it won't happen I'm afraid.

I guess it could be problematic on shows where most punters just pay on the door but for a lot of the small hall shows the fighters do sell lots of tickets in advance and that's what generates the income for these shows rather than TV money so I still think it could work. Furthermore the purses for these shows are presumably pretty low which makes doing it easier than in shows where fighters are on 6 figure sums.

Rumpole wrote:

hurlock wrote:Didn't he bail out the board not so long ago???

Dont the fighters send out a court order???

I'd be seriously worried of him winding the company down.

This is where you all make a mistake.

Everyone confuses a Promotional Company with a licenced Promoter. They are two totally seperate legal entities.

BY virtue of Regulation 9.1 no company, partnership, charity or organisation can hold a Promoters licence. A licence to promote boxing contests can only be issued to an individual. Therefore, Matchroom Limited and F... W..... Promotions Limited cannot and do not hold a Promoters licence. They purport to promote the careers of Boxers. Read my earlier post.

It is the promoter (the man himself) who MUST pay the Boxer not the promotional company. No promotional company holds any licence issued by the Board these companies have no affiliation to the Board whatsoever. They are private limited companies and totally separate legal entities to the individuals who hold the Promoter's licence.

In the event that any of these companies go "tits up" or even stays in business, if a Boxer does not get paid, It is the individual Promoter who is liable and who the Boxer must sue.

Get legal advice but not from your ordinary high street solicitor, they don't have a clue. Go to a solicitor who specialises in Sports Law such as Mel Goldberg. Google him.

good sir
i have a question on the above which i hope you can answer
i recall recently seeing an article online where a national newspaper at the time of the case published an apology and a correction to a previous story they ran where they had stated that Mr W himself owed Calzaghe the money. The correction stated that the money was owed by Sports Network and not Mr W. I think this was because W sued Calzaghe for the Jones Jr cut in the name of SN and Calzaghe counter sued for the Hopkins money presumably against SN.
that being the case (and i'm trying to find the article again - i'll post link if i do) how did W win his case against the newspaper? Was it simply easier for the paper to retract/apologise than contest that it was W who owed Calzaghe and not SN?

Legal action was SN v JC first then JC v FW.

SteveDow wrote:...where fighters are on 6 figure sums.

I wonder how many times in an average calendar year fighters on UK shows are paid a six figure sum? I don't think it would be any more than five times a year. Maybe fewer than two or three in the last couple of years.

Vaudeville Villain wrote:I remember an infamous small hall show where there was a post-show exchange of views between some fighters and the promoter RE their wages.

Who and where ?

Dale Miles just posted this on Twitter

@dmiles1984: 5weeks and still not paid by @FM_Promotions never get that problem with @davidcoldwell and @EddieHearn

it all stinks of a cerain FW having a few financial difficulties at present.