BoxRec

Matt Teague wrote:all they will do is stop them fighting on there shows ....... Until its a big money fight

Have they done this yet? Can they do this?

Everyone linked to the upton park show was alledged to have there licence taken revoked by the bbbc, but I'm sure it was just scare tactics, as nothing happened after show
Anyone have news on this ??

Matt Teague wrote:Everyone linked to the upton park show was alledged to have there licence taken revoked by the bbbc, but I'm sure it was just scare tactics, as nothing happened after show
Anyone have news on this ??

They 100% haven't. BBBoC licenced boxers who fought on the show have all fought after. There are loads of boxers who have or plan to fight on GBA/Malta/WBU/WBF shows too. Not sure if any action has been taken though.

They opened the floodgates when they where powerless to stop the upton park show and took no action on the people who performed on it.

The boards bluff was called by Warren and they backed down because the BBBoC under EU law cannot prevent any other EU Boxing boards sanctioning events and licensing Boxers in the UK.

The threats and bullying of Licence holders on the run up to Chishora Haye was disgraceful considering it was all posturing.

london wrote:The boards bluff was called by Warren and they backed down because the BBBoC under EU law cannot prevent any other EU Boxing boards sanctioning events and licensing Boxers in the UK.

The threats and bullying of Licence holders on the run up to Chishora Haye was disgraceful considering it was all posturing.

You can't really argue with that. Any Board members who visit this forum are welcome to respond.

Callowland wrote:

london wrote:The boards bluff was called by Warren and they backed down because the BBBoC under EU law cannot prevent any other EU Boxing boards sanctioning events and licensing Boxers in the UK.

The threats and bullying of Licence holders on the run up to Chishora Haye was disgraceful considering it was all posturing.

You can't really argue with that. Any Board members who visit this forum are welcome to respond.

yes puffed their chest out and did nothing in reality

I'm surprised so many British boxing fans and fighters appear to revel in the fact that EU legislation has emasculated the British Boxing Board of Control.

Sklar wrote:I'm surprised so many British boxing fans and fighters appear to revel in the fact EU legislation has emasculated the British Boxing Board of Control.

Could it be to do with the way it intimidated it's members with a load of old pomp and bluster then hopelessly back tracked when they didnt properly research their legal position. Perhaps some feel let down and misguided by the Board who for years purported to be the all powerfull governing body that they clearly aren't.

I'm just disillusioned by their lack of transparency and communication on such matters.

Sklar wrote:I'm surprised so many British boxing fans and fighters appear to revel in the fact that EU legislation has emasculated the British Boxing Board of Control.

It could be to do with the fact the many see the Board as sitting in Ivory Towers unanswerable and unaccountable to their members. It’s probably built up a lot of resentment and an “Us and Them” feeling amongst their members which really isn’t the way any organisation should be run.

slapbangwhallop wrote:

Sklar wrote:I'm surprised so many British boxing fans and fighters appear to revel in the fact that EU legislation has emasculated the British Boxing Board of Control.

It could be to do with the fact the many see the Board as sitting in Ivory Towers unanswerable and unaccountable to their members. It’s probably built up a lot of resentment and an “Us and Them” feeling amongst their members which really isn’t the way any organisation should be run.

spot on mate plus as the insider says a lack of transparency and communication basically a ship without a rudder

spudder56 wrote:

slapbangwhallop wrote:

Sklar wrote:I'm surprised so many British boxing fans and fighters appear to revel in the fact that EU legislation has emasculated the British Boxing Board of Control.

It could be to do with the fact the many see the Board as sitting in Ivory Towers unanswerable and unaccountable to their members. It’s probably built up a lot of resentment and an “Us and Them” feeling amongst their members which really isn’t the way any organisation should be run.

spot on mate plus as the insider says a lack of transparency and communication basically a ship without a rudder

Lack of communication and transparency is rife with the Board. Members should revolt.

[quote="Callowland"][quote="spudder56"][quote="slapbangwhallop"][quote="Sklar"]I'm surprised so many British boxing fans and fighters appear to revel in the fact that EU legislation has emasculated the British Boxing Board of Control.[/quote]

It could be to do with the fact the many see the Board as sitting in Ivory Towers unanswerable and unaccountable to their members. It’s probably built up a lot of resentment and an “Us and Them” feeling amongst their members which really isn’t the way any organisation should be run.[/quote]



spot on mate plus as the insider says a lack of transparency and communication basically a ship without a rudder[/quote]

Lack of communication and transparency is rife with the Board. Members should revolt.[/quote]


or start their own organisation up if there not happy being members of the board it would then solve all the problems just like if somebody is not happy with any club they are in just dont hang around move to another one its not rocket science is it

I don't understand the continual animosity towards the Board in some quarters. Obviously if you're a licence holder and the Board make a decision against you ,then I can understand where the bad feeling comes from. However the people in charge on the Board are trying to do their best and the vast majority of their decisions are sound. I know of no allegation where somebody has suggested ANY member of the board has taken a 'backhander' so if that's the case they make decisions as best as they can.

The reason I think that they are not so transparent with their decisions is this . The more they say ,the more opportunity there exists for wealthy individuals to sue them. Lawyers would examine EVERY WORD and try to challenge it. That's what happens in the corporate legal world.

I have no involvement with the Board, but I feel they do their best. They are certainly respected throughout the boxing world. What we need to remember is that almost every licence holder ( excluding unpaid inspectors ) has a vested financial interest in some respect. So their is an emotional aspect to all disputes.

They don't always get it right, but an honest decision ,albeit possibly wrong, is ALWAYS better than a dishonest decision.

I personally believe that they can be intimidated by some licence holders - that is my only complaint. What we need is an independently wealthy individual , with no connections within boxing, who can stand up and take the tough decisions come hell or high water. Seb Coe has been suggested before but he wouldn't take it. Lets nominate Alex Ferguson !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dalcumly wrote:I don't understand the continual animosity towards the Board in some quarters. Obviously if you're a licence holder and the Board make a decision against you ,then I can understand where the bad feeling comes from. However the people in charge on the Board are trying to do their best and the vast majority of their decisions are sound. I know of no allegation where somebody has suggested ANY member of the board has taken a 'backhander' so if that's the case they make decisions as best as they can.

The reason I think that they are not so transparent with their decisions is this . The more they say ,the more opportunity there exists for wealthy individuals to sue them. Lawyers would examine EVERY WORD and try to challenge it. That's what happens in the corporate legal world.

I have no involvement with the Board, but I feel they do their best. They are certainly respected throughout the boxing world. What we need to remember is that almost every licence holder ( excluding unpaid inspectors ) has a vested financial interest in some respect. So their is an emotional aspect to all disputes.

They don't always get it right, but an honest decision ,albeit possibly wrong, is ALWAYS better than a dishonest decision.

I personally believe that they can be intimidated by some licence holders - that is my only complaint. What we need is an independently wealthy individual , with no connections within boxing, who can stand up and take the tough decisions come hell or high water. Seb Coe has been suggested before but he wouldn't take it. Lets nominate Alex Ferguson !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes bunny made the ludicrous nomination of lord Coe but he conveniently forgot to say how his salary would be funded bearing in mind that his salary with the Olympic project was 3 times the boards annual turnover the figures just don't add up and also bare in mind that the vast majority of licence holders are always moaning that licence fees should be reduced but if Bunnys idea had been adopted licence fees would have to be quadrupled

mickey1975 wrote:

Anzi wrote:The board are only concerned with getting sued if the same thing that happened to Micheal Watson, happened now, they shamed the sport by allowing Flintoff to fight, not only fight, but on live tv, how did he pass his trial bout ? The Board are just money orientated, the fighters who fought on the so called illegal show at upton park have all been rewarded, with title shots or elliminators, it's a joke. It's easy to get round a possible ban, due to number of losses, just get a win, which managers help them to do, a little easy fight and money is rolling in again on the road.

There is no trial bout anymore.

When did these stop? I know they're not 'bouts' in the truest sense of the word, but at least three applicant boxers that I have managed in the last five years have been the subject of trial 'spars' with licensed boxers.

metchampion wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:

Anzi wrote:The board are only concerned with getting sued if the same thing that happened to Micheal Watson, happened now, they shamed the sport by allowing Flintoff to fight, not only fight, but on live tv, how did he pass his trial bout ? The Board are just money orientated, the fighters who fought on the so called illegal show at upton park have all been rewarded, with title shots or elliminators, it's a joke. It's easy to get round a possible ban, due to number of losses, just get a win, which managers help them to do, a little easy fight and money is rolling in again on the road.

There is no trial bout anymore.

When did these stop? I know they're not 'bouts' in the truest sense of the word, but at least three applicant boxers that I have managed in the last five years have been the subject of trial 'spars' with licensed boxers.

The trial bout was replaced by assessments about a year ago the reason being insurance implications

It could be to do with the fact the many see the Board as sitting in Ivory Towers unanswerable and unaccountable to their members. It’s probably built up a lot of resentment and an “Us and Them” feeling amongst their members which really isn’t the way any organisation should be run.[/quote]



spot on mate plus as the insider says a lack of transparency and communication basically a ship without a rudder[/quote]

Lack of communication and transparency is rife with the Board. Members should revolt.[/quote]


or start their own organisation up if there not happy being members of the board it would then solve all the problems just like if somebody is not happy with any club they are in just dont hang around move to another one its not rocket science is it[/quote]

Or reform from within and make themselves more accountable to their members.

Can you explain why you think the Board is not accountable to its members ??

There are meetings , local Area committees and regular communications. If any licence holder wants an explanation about a decision involving themselves they just need to ask.

The problem is that not enough licence holders can be bothered to turn up at AGM's, and many struggle to articulate their views in a coherent manner. Most of us are the same when we get emotional and it can be daunting to stand up and speak in public.

Here's an example of how animosity can be targeted ( wrongly ) at the Board, and the difficulty officials can face, leading to a PERCEPTION that the Board can do no good. On the night of a 'town hall ' show , one of the bouts between a home town big ticket seller and a visitor has hit a problem. The match was made at say 11 sts 10 lbs. The visitor arrives and he's 12 sts 10 lbs. The promoter persuades the home town fighter and his trainer to accept the fight. The Steward in charge refuses to let the fight go ahead. The promoter ends up in a slagging match with the Steward suggesting he's trying to destroy local boxing.Who's to blame here. The visitor and his manager/trainer ? The matchmaker ? The promoter ? The home boxer and his trainer for accepting the fight? Or the Steward ?

dalcumly wrote:Can you explain why you think the Board is not accountable to its members ??

There are meetings , local Area committees and regular communications. If any licence holder wants an explanation about a decision involving themselves they just need to ask.

The problem is that not enough licence holders can be bothered to turn up at AGM's, and many struggle to articulate their views in a coherent manner. Most of us are the same when we get emotional and it can be daunting to stand up and speak in public.

Here's an example of how animosity can be targeted ( wrongly ) at the Board, and the difficulty officials can face, leading to a PERCEPTION that the Board can do no good. On the night of a 'town hall ' show , one of the bouts between a home town big ticket seller and a visitor has hit a problem. The match was made at say 11 sts 10 lbs. The visitor arrives and he's 12 sts 10 lbs. The promoter persuades the home town fighter and his trainer to accept the fight. The Steward in charge refuses to let the fight go ahead. The promoter ends up in a slagging match with the Steward suggesting he's trying to destroy local boxing.Who's to blame here. The visitor and his manager/trainer ? The matchmaker ? The promoter ? The home boxer and his trainer for accepting the fight? Or the Steward ?

The problem are not the decisions, it's consistency, one rule for one another for someone else i.e some fighters are not allowed to jump up to 10 rounders from 4 or 6, others are allowed, some people are refused title shots, others with less ability get them, Promoters but their local ticket seller against a journeyman for a title, too almost guarantee the win, whilst other prospects are left in the dark, Local promoters hold on to area titles, their fighters defending against their own or their mates fighters or sometimes they hold on to the title for long periods without defending, hoping it will get them a British title shot, too many home town decisions from officials, how come the away fighter rarely get a bad decision go their way ? This is why the board gets criticism, it don't use it's authority fairly, evenly, most of it's rules are not set in stone, but open to corruption i.e contracts for fights, paying fighters on time to name just a couple.

Anzi wrote:

dalcumly wrote:Can you explain why you think the Board is not accountable to its members ??

There are meetings , local Area committees and regular communications. If any licence holder wants an explanation about a decision involving themselves they just need to ask.

The problem is that not enough licence holders can be bothered to turn up at AGM's, and many struggle to articulate their views in a coherent manner. Most of us are the same when we get emotional and it can be daunting to stand up and speak in public.

Here's an example of how animosity can be targeted ( wrongly ) at the Board, and the difficulty officials can face, leading to a PERCEPTION that the Board can do no good. On the night of a 'town hall ' show , one of the bouts between a home town big ticket seller and a visitor has hit a problem. The match was made at say 11 sts 10 lbs. The visitor arrives and he's 12 sts 10 lbs. The promoter persuades the home town fighter and his trainer to accept the fight. The Steward in charge refuses to let the fight go ahead. The promoter ends up in a slagging match with the Steward suggesting he's trying to destroy local boxing.Who's to blame here. The visitor and his manager/trainer ? The matchmaker ? The promoter ? The home boxer and his trainer for accepting the fight? Or the Steward ?

The problem are not the decisions, it's consistency, one rule for one another for someone else i.e some fighters are not allowed to jump up to 10 rounders from 4 or 6, others are allowed, some people are refused title shots, others with less ability get them, Promoters but their local ticket seller against a journeyman for a title, too almost guarantee the win, whilst other prospects are left in the dark, Local promoters hold on to area titles, their fighters defending against their own or their mates fighters or sometimes they hold on to the title for long periods without defending, hoping it will get them a British title shot, too many home town decisions from officials, how come the away fighter rarely get a bad decision go their way ? This is why the board gets criticism, it don't use it's authority fairly, evenly, most of it's rules are not set in stone, but open to corruption i.e contracts for fights, paying fighters on time to name just a couple.

Anzi if you have evidence of corruption you have a duty to name the cases of this because these people need rooting out and replacing as a matter of urgency so please give us the names I can assure you there is absolutely none of this in the midlands and I challenge anybody to come with examples that need investigating

I imagine part of the problem is that boxing is both a sport and a business with many different interested parties involved. The board cannot keep everyone happy and it doesn't seem to have a load of sway over erring promoters etc - boxers wouldn't be taking (ex) promoters to court over unpaid purse money if the board had any serious influence. The board have ensured the sport is better regulated and safer than it was 25/30 years ago and it's ironic that to do that the board needed the money of a leading promoter.

Some of the decisions it has made in the past have been petty and really against the run of the sport - I think I remember reading that the Ingle gym in Sheffield was singled out and life was made difficult because professionals trained alongside amateurs; this is commonplace today.

palooka wrote:I imagine part of the problem is that boxing is both a sport and a business with many different interested parties involved. The board cannot keep everyone happy and it doesn't seem to have a load of sway over erring promoters etc - boxers wouldn't be taking (ex) promoters to court over unpaid purse money if the board had any serious influence. The board have ensured the sport is better regulated and safer than it was 25/30 years ago and it's ironic that to do that the board needed the money of a leading promoter.

Some of the decisions it has made in the past have been petty and really against the run of the sport - I think I remember reading that the Ingle gym in Sheffield was singled out and life was made difficult because professionals trained alongside amateurs; this is commonplace today.

Palooka, Hit the nail on the head, I am afraid the board are too reliant on the promoters and the promoters know that, if they take a license off a promoter, they hit themselves in the pockets and the industry as well, if they had more promoters in each area, they would have more power and be able to take action. Spudder, while Promoters wine and dine officials, developing closer relationships, they will always be bias, not enough is done to officials over dodgy decisions, how many promoters sign contracts with fighters at the lower end of the scale ? with regards to purse, for most it's a verbal agreement based on ticket sales, what do the BBB of C rules say on this ?, many officials go on the forums, surely this should not be allowed, how can they remain unbiased, when they have to judge or referee people in the industry who they have discussions with, sometimes for or against, friend or foe.

After yesterday's hearings at the Board, it's about to get very interesting..........