Coco wrote: ↑06 Oct 2022, 18:46
I'm guessing that the BBBoC had quietly given Hearns the go ahead, otherwise he would have got Luxembourg on board.
With the story being broken they were forced into a corner.
Otherwise no one would have known.
Begs the question, has the board overlooked other positive results?
What happened with Whyte was a farce
Even though it was pretty last minute I still think they could have used a different commission to keep the fight on this weekend. Clearly though they decided against it perhaps because of the impact it could have on all of the undercard fighters.
Nonsense.
I feel really sorry for the under card fighters and would like to see insurance in place to recompense them but the main event itself needed to be cancelled.
Coco wrote: ↑06 Oct 2022, 18:46
I'm guessing that the BBBoC had quietly given Hearns the go ahead, otherwise he would have got Luxembourg on board.
With the story being broken they were forced into a corner.
Otherwise no one would have known.
Begs the question, has the board overlooked other positive results?
What happened with Whyte was a farce
Even though it was pretty last minute I still think they could have used a different commission to keep the fight on this weekend. Clearly though they decided against it perhaps because of the impact it could have on all of the undercard fighters.
Nonsense.
I feel really sorry for the under card fighters and would like to see insurance in place to recompense them but the main event itself needed to be cancelled.
What’s nonsense?
I’m not saying that’s what they should have done. I 100% think the main should have been cancelled. I’m just saying that’s what they could have done if they were so insistent on it happening.
I agree it’s really poor for the undercard fighters. Insurance for something like this would be impossible and massively open to abuse though, particularly with the amount of unscrupulous people around boxing. They had pro wrestling insurance in the late 80s/90s through Lloyds of London. Massively abused and Lloyds had to stop doing it.
ewenhay wrote: ↑07 Oct 2022, 05:29
You suggested they should have used a different commission to keep the fight on.
Which would have been just as bad as if the bbbc had went ahead with the fight.
Despite the ambiguity around the bbbc decision making process the final decision was the correct one.
I said could - not should. It would have been crazy to let the fight happen and I was pleased they didn’t go down the other commission route.
The BBBC made the right decision. For me though it took them 2 weeks too long to make that call which is concerning given they only pulled it when it became public.
ewenhay wrote: ↑07 Oct 2022, 05:29
You suggested they should have used a different commission to keep the fight on.
Which would have been just as bad as if the bbbc had went ahead with the fight.
Despite the ambiguity around the bbbc decision making process the final decision was the correct one.
I said could - not should. It would have been crazy to let the fight happen and I was pleased they didn’t go down the other commission route.
The BBBC made the right decision. For me though it took them 2 weeks too long to make that call which is concerning given they only pulled it when it became public.
ewenhay wrote: ↑07 Oct 2022, 05:29
You suggested they should have used a different commission to keep the fight on.
Which would have been just as bad as if the bbbc had went ahead with the fight.
Despite the ambiguity around the bbbc decision making process the final decision was the correct one.
I said could - not should. It would have been crazy to let the fight happen and I was pleased they didn’t go down the other commission route.
The BBBC made the right decision. For me though it took them 2 weeks too long to make that call which is concerning given they only pulled it when it became public.
If the Board and promoters knew that there was a chance that this bout would not take place, would those who booked accommodation, travelled from afar, not have a strong claim for expenses against them?
Normal practice would be for the show to go on, with a changed opponent so that a case can be made that 'your ticket was for the show, not just one bout', that the ticket was honoured, but not in this case.
There is almost certainly some small print to cover most eventualities such as storms, floods, terrorist attacks, but I doubt that withholding information that may alter your decision to buy would be one of them.
coneye wrote: ↑07 Oct 2022, 13:58
Tyson Fury leaked it ,,, Now he can sneak , Chisora or Charr in under the radar
It’s not the kind of thing you want to sneak under the radar though. It’s the headline of an 80,000 seat stadium and on PPV. They need as much publicity as they can get.
Tarquin Tarpaulin IV wrote: ↑08 Oct 2022, 05:18
If the Board and promoters knew that there was a chance that this bout would not take place, would those who booked accommodation, travelled from afar, not have a strong claim for expenses against them?
Normal practice would be for the show to go on, with a changed opponent so that a case can be made that 'your ticket was for the show, not just one bout', that the ticket was honoured, but not in this case.
There is almost certainly some small print to cover most eventualities such as storms, floods, terrorist attacks, but I doubt that withholding information that may alter your decision to buy would be one of them.
Yeh, people book tickets/ppv even last minute.
Imagine ow many people made that decision to pay for the fight someway or another after the the 23rd Sept or whenever it was.
