BoxRec

Posted: **03 Jan 2026, 17:13**

SeanBrennan wrote: ↑03 Jan 2026, 16:51
TheLeprechaun wrote: ↑03 Jan 2026, 16:48
Spud MK2 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2026, 15:41 robinson
may be called head of boxing … but their last show was last
show was in june 2025.

He doesnt have a department to be head of.

That mouthpiece nelson was recently slagging off shalom on his way to collecting his P45
Johnny has been stealing a living as a company man for years. Remember when he came out with Tennyson would beat Tank Davis.
Haha! That is nearly as good as “I’m technically better than Usyk” Nelson

The strange thing is, when Usyk was at cruiser, Johnny said he would 'beat them all' at heavyweight. Then as soon as he started doing so, Johnny started hatin' on him.

Posted: **03 Jan 2026, 17:19**

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑03 Jan 2026, 17:13
SeanBrennan wrote: ↑03 Jan 2026, 16:51
TheLeprechaun wrote: ↑03 Jan 2026, 16:48

Johnny has been stealing a living as a company man for years. Remember when he came out with Tennyson would beat Tank Davis.
Haha! That is nearly as good as “I’m technically better than Usyk” Nelson
The strange thing is, when Usyk was at cruiser, Johnny said he would 'beat them all' at heavyweight. Then as soon as he started doing so, Johnny started hatin' on him.

Here’s Johnny!

Posted: **03 Jan 2026, 17:19**

SeanBrennan wrote: ↑03 Jan 2026, 17:19
keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑03 Jan 2026, 17:13
SeanBrennan wrote: ↑03 Jan 2026, 16:51

Haha! That is nearly as good as “I’m technically better than Usyk” Nelson
The strange thing is, when Usyk was at cruiser, Johnny said he would 'beat them all' at heavyweight. Then as soon as he started doing so, Johnny started hatin' on him.
Here’s Johnny!

Posted: **03 Jan 2026, 17:53**

Sky embarked on a historic reinvention of Nelson's career during his time with them as a commentator. Asking what would've happened if Johnny and Roy Jones had fought. I don't recall anyone ever talking about that at the time. Nelson was a peripheral WBO belt holder.

Posted: **03 Jan 2026, 20:26**

steve689 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2026, 17:53 Sky embarked on a historic reinvention of Nelson's career during his time with them as a commentator. Asking what would've happened if Johnny and Roy Jones had fought. I don't recall anyone ever talking about that at the time. Nelson was a peripheral WBO belt holder.

I watched Nelson vs Carl Thompson and it was the most shocking stoppage I've seen when you consider Carl Thompson toughness. Thompson was in more trouble against Haye than he was against Nelson. I also watched another Nelson fight and it was so bad that I genuinely fell asleep while watching it. I'm not joking.

Regarding the potential Ed Robinson vs Ben Shalom battle, it's probably going to come down to the contracts. Obviously Ben Shalom thinks he has a good case but Ed seems to be running things and it could be a case of what he says goes. I would rather he was in charge than Adam Smith. If he can win this case I have no doubt he could bring back the glory days if he was given a chance to run things. He has served his apprenticeship. I'm totally in Eds corner here.

Posted: **04 Jan 2026, 07:03**

I imagine Nelson & the rest at Sky are pissed off with Shalom because he caught them out & they fully expected to shaft him & to be putting on shows on Sky but instead they’re all stuck without work.

Posted: **04 Jan 2026, 07:30**

a force wrote: ↑04 Jan 2026, 07:03 I imagine Nelson & the rest at Sky are pissed off with Shalom because he caught them out & they fully expected to shaft him & to be putting on shows on Sky but instead they’re all stuck without work.

They were looting a living for decades. I think Adam Smith enjoyed looking at Johnny and being Johnnys mate. Johnny enjoyed walking around with Adam. The gravy train has to come to an end at some point.

Posted: **04 Jan 2026, 08:19**

As long as Turki / Dana have their fingers in the dazn pie (along with Frank and Eddie) then really any court case or whatever isn’t worth the agro/stress to fight over.

No fighter with an ounce of common sense is going to want to reject Turkis millions to fight nobodies on Sky. No TV company (with any sense) is going to invest in a fighter knowing that when it comes to the big fights that will be shown dazn with Turki.

MVP might become a player, yes. But really it would be daft for them to leave Netflix global millions for a largely UK / European brand. Yes we could have a model like the early days of dazn. Dazn rest of the world, UK on Sky. But in reality and in hindsight, that was only until Eddie saw out his Sky contract.

If Turki decides to do what he used to do and share the ppv rights (remember when Usyk vs Fury was on three platforms) then we might have a different fight. But at the moment, it no tv company is going to invest in boxing.

Turki has a monopoly, he runs the sport. His minions (Whyte, Hearn and Warren) are making a shit load of the back of him, but it is yes your excellency, no your excellency, three bags full your excellency.

Posted: **04 Jan 2026, 11:07**

stujones wrote: ↑04 Jan 2026, 08:19 As long as Turki / Dana have their fingers in the dazn pie (along with Frank and Eddie) then really any court case or whatever isn’t worth the agro/stress to fight over.

No fighter with an ounce of common sense is going to want to reject Turkis millions to fight nobodies on Sky. No TV company (with any sense) is going to invest in a fighter knowing that when it comes to the big fights that will be shown dazn with Turki.

MVP might become a player, yes. But really it would be daft for them to leave Netflix global millions for a largely UK / European brand. Yes we could have a model like the early days of dazn. Dazn rest of the world, UK on Sky. But in reality and in hindsight, that was only until Eddie saw out his Sky contract.

If Turki decides to do what he used to do and share the ppv rights (remember when Usyk vs Fury was on three platforms) then we might have a different fight. But at the moment, it no tv company is going to invest in boxing.

Turki has a monopoly, he runs the sport. His minions (Whyte, Hearn and Warren) are making a shit load of the back of him, but it is yes your excellency, no your excellency, three bags full your excellency.

I think it was a good move by the Saudi Arabians. They took over the sport and made the promotors their servants. Turki walking around holding their hand

Then I'm guessing they were sat down and told "His Excellency" was the way to address Turki and anything less will see you booted out. Next thing you know you have the Hearns and other promotors singing the tune "His Excellency brought us all together" "his Excellency is the best person in boxing history" etc. You wonder how far they would go for a pound note and some publicity. I've seen those porta pottie Instagram reveals. Wouldn't be surprised if Turki was taking a dump on some people and sending them out to give the "his Excellency" BS in interviews for a pound note.

Posted: **04 Jan 2026, 13:00**

stujones wrote: ↑04 Jan 2026, 08:19 As long as Turki / Dana have their fingers in the dazn pie (along with Frank and Eddie) then really any court case or whatever isn’t worth the agro/stress to fight over.

Sorry Stu you and others sre completely wrong to take the court case lightly.

Theres a BIG reason why sky have still not named sn english based promoter.

boxing is a minority sport and Sky fear the very least they will get away with is a MASSIVE settlement out of court

Posted: **04 Jan 2026, 13:06**

leprechaun absolutely excellent post

Posted: **04 Jan 2026, 14:50**

Come on Spud. Tell us what you know.

Who else was meant to be involved in Blue Wolf Sports?

Posted: **04 Jan 2026, 14:57**

I see Companies House list Shah Wasmund as a fellow Director.

I believe she worked with Chris Eubank.

I’m sure she had something to do with Howard Eastman back in the day, but I could be completely wrong about that.

Posted: **04 Jan 2026, 15:17**

Spud MK2 wrote: ↑04 Jan 2026, 13:06 leprechaun absolutely excellent post

I can't see Ed Robinson having the lack of dignity required to be lead around by the hand by Turki and then spout the Excellency boll*cks. But if he is a glorified tea boy as you say then that's not a good sign.

Posted: **04 Jan 2026, 16:25**

Corporate

sabotage means intentionally undermining a company's operations, reputation, or goals through actions like disrupting projects, spreading misinformation, stealing secrets, damaging property, or withholding crucial information, often by disgruntled employees or competitors to cause chaos or gain an advantage. It can be overt (vandalism, theft) or subtle (passive resistance, fak sick days) and harms productivity, trust, and the bottom line.

Types of Corporate Sabotage

Employee Sabotage (Internal): Actions by current or past employees to hurt the company.

Active: Deliberately performing poorly, damaging equipment, leaking data to competitors, falsifying records, or refusing duties.

Passive: Withholding effort, not contributing to teams, faking illnesses (time theft), or resisting change.

Corporate Espionage (External/Internal): Stealing sensitive information (trade secrets, customer data) for competitive gain, often involving spies or insiders.

Common Examples

Information Theft: Stealing proprietary data, customer lists, or trade secrets.

Reputational Damage: Spreading false rumors, badmouthing the company online.

Operational Disruption: Misplacing files, breaking machinery, delaying projects, or giving bad advice.

Resource Misuse: Time theft, embezzlement, or using company resources for personal gain (moonlighting)

Motivations

Revenge/Anger: Feeling wronged by management or the company.

Financial Gain: Selling secrets, embezzling funds, or working for a competitor

Career Advancement: Undermining colleagues to look better by comparison.u

Disengagement/Frustration: A symptom of low morale or feeling unheard.

Posted: **04 Jan 2026, 17:03**

after reading the above read the following court notes

The Defendant was first engaged by the Plaintiff in 2020 under terms set out in an email agreement covering the period 10 June 2020 to 31 August 2020. That early arrangement included (for that period) an exclusivity obligation not to work for other UK promoters and obligations of confidentiality and not to take actions damaging to the Plaintiff's business.

The Defendant continued to work for the Plaintiff after the expiry of that initial period, was treated as a full-time and integral member of the team and was identified as a "key man" in a significant commercial contract between the Plaintiff and a broadcaster that ran from 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2025.

In January 2024 a draft "Consultancy Agreement" was drawn up to record the terms of the Defendant's appointment.

That draft was never finalised, signed or executed. The Plaintiff says the Defendant orally confirmed he was happy with the draft, continued to invoice and accept the monthly fee provided for in the draft, and proceeded on the basis that its terms applied (including a 12‑month notice provision said to have been accepted by email on 1 May 2024).

The Plaintiff contends that, whether by incorporation of that draft or by virtue of duties incident to his role, the Defendant owed the Plaintiff a set of negative obligations (including a duty to use best endeavours to promote the Plaintiff's interests, a prohibition on making representations to promoters or fighters without consent, and a prohibition on engaging in competing business).

The Defendant disputes that the January 2024 draft was incorporated into his contract, pointing to its unsigned status, the absence of a completed Schedule of Services, his denial of having confirmed the draft, and his assertion that he would not have agreed to certain onerous terms in it.

On 13 May 2025 the Plaintiff's broadcaster informed the Plaintiff it would not enter a further contract after 30 June 2025.

The Plaintiff says that, from March 2025, deleted emails discovered in the Defendant's Plaintiff email account show the Defendant was corresponding with the broadcaster and others about a proposed rival venture that would circumvent the Plaintiff and that the Defendant deleted emails to conceal that activity. The Defendant says the emails were attempts to salvage the Plaintiff's business and its relationship with the broadcaster and that there was nothing dishonest in his conduct.

On or about 12–13 August 2025 the Defendant informed the Plaintiff that he intended to leave and, shortly thereafter, the Plaintiff learned (through third‑party enquiries) of venue and event enquiries consistent with preparations for events by a competing venture.

A review of the Defendant's Plaintiff email account showed that on 7 August 2025 the Defendant deleted a number of older emails (and deleted them again from the deleted items folder); the Defendant admits the deletions and says he deleted the emails to prevent the Plaintiff's CEO from seeing them. The Plaintiff summarised the deleted material as including budget frameworks and spreadsheets for proposed events involving fighters contracted to the Plaintiff, drafts of correspondence with the Plaintiff's broadcaster proposing a new business that would exploit the broadcaster's facilities and channels, and other materials indicating the Defendant had worked on financial details for proposals that were not the Plaintiff's plans. The review also identified a double-deleted email on 20 August 2025 from a United States matchmaker about arranging a potential fight.

The Plaintiff believes the Defendant may have been assisted by another employee of the Plaintiff whom the Defendant manages. The Plaintiff says the Defendant's alleged conduct is incompatible with the duties he owed to the Plaintiff and seeks injunctive relief to restrain competitive activity pending trial.

Procedurally, the Plaintiff issued an application notice dated 1 September 2025 seeking an interim injunction restraining the Defendant from carrying out work for a competitor or potential competitor until trial or further order. The Plaintiff filed a claim form on 1 September 2025 seeking injunctive relief and damages. The application was supported by witness statements from the Plaintiff's CEO and the Plaintiff's Chief Legal Officer (both dated 1 September 2025). The Defendant filed a witness statement dated 11 September 2025 and, the day before the hearing, proposed a compromise form of restriction which the Plaintiff considered inadequate. The application was heard on notice to the Defendant on 12 September 2025. The parties anticipate an expedited trial in approximately November 2025.

Posted: **04 Jan 2026, 17:15**

If that evidence holds, it’s very compelling.

Sky can afford the best legal advice as well.

Posted: **04 Jan 2026, 20:36**

Frostieballs wrote: ↑04 Jan 2026, 17:15 If that evidence holds, it’s very compelling.

Sky can afford the best legal advice as well.

The case from boxxer is against Whichusen not sky.

Posted: **04 Jan 2026, 21:57**

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑03 Jan 2026, 15:50
Spud MK2 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2026, 15:31
TheLeprechaun wrote: ↑03 Jan 2026, 11:30 Is Ed Robinson running Sky boxing now?
my friend of a friend tells me ed robinson is in the position ln name onlynand has to allegedly go to Rob Selmes for permission to make a cup of tea
Spud, you're coming across as very childish and petty. You didn't used to be like this.

Basically someone at Boxxer seems to have given him the time of day and now he's like a full-kit wanker, flying the flag and getting all emotionally invested while parroting shite he's being fed.

Real industry insider behaviour

Posted: **04 Jan 2026, 23:47**

Firstly . Don,t know why your bothered Spud , i know i myself could,nt be arsed to dig . Prod and stick my nose in where it was,nt my buisness . Its a buisness venture and in buisness it goes on all the time ,its par for the course let them sort it out you yourself hav,nt been in the best of health ,so dont worry yourself over something thats got nothing to do with you . Spend your time taking your familly to the park .go for a walk with the dog , take the grandkids out for an ice cream if you got some if you dont take the nephews you could put your time in too better things than this coperate shite .....On a side note though its not suprising to me it happens in buisness . But myself after years and years of running a small buisness one think struvk me very very early in the peice . Was this although most who worked for you wanted what you got the biggest back stabbers ,shit stirrers and go behind your back steal your work types were 9 times out of 10 ENGLISH so much soi would never in later years employ an englishman i always told my sons the same thing and they would laugh and say i,m mental . But now after being employers they all 3 agree and say unless they know them personaly before hand they will never employ a pom so all in all why you suprised but more so why you bothered

Posted: **05 Jan 2026, 00:40**

Spud MK2 wrote: ↑04 Jan 2026, 17:03 after reading the above read the following court notes

The Defendant was first engaged by the Plaintiff in 2020 under terms set out in an email agreement covering the period 10 June 2020 to 31 August 2020. That early arrangement included (for that period) an exclusivity obligation not to work for other UK promoters and obligations of confidentiality and not to take actions damaging to the Plaintiff's business.

The Defendant continued to work for the Plaintiff after the expiry of that initial period, was treated as a full-time and integral member of the team and was identified as a "key man" in a significant commercial contract between the Plaintiff and a broadcaster that ran from 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2025.

In January 2024 a draft "Consultancy Agreement" was drawn up to record the terms of the Defendant's appointment.

That draft was never finalised, signed or executed. The Plaintiff says the Defendant orally confirmed he was happy with the draft, continued to invoice and accept the monthly fee provided for in the draft, and proceeded on the basis that its terms applied (including a 12‑month notice provision said to have been accepted by email on 1 May 2024).

The Plaintiff contends that, whether by incorporation of that draft or by virtue of duties incident to his role, the Defendant owed the Plaintiff a set of negative obligations (including a duty to use best endeavours to promote the Plaintiff's interests, a prohibition on making representations to promoters or fighters without consent, and a prohibition on engaging in competing business).

The Defendant disputes that the January 2024 draft was incorporated into his contract, pointing to its unsigned status, the absence of a completed Schedule of Services, his denial of having confirmed the draft, and his assertion that he would not have agreed to certain onerous terms in it.

On 13 May 2025 the Plaintiff's broadcaster informed the Plaintiff it would not enter a further contract after 30 June 2025.

The Plaintiff says that, from March 2025, deleted emails discovered in the Defendant's Plaintiff email account show the Defendant was corresponding with the broadcaster and others about a proposed rival venture that would circumvent the Plaintiff and that the Defendant deleted emails to conceal that activity. The Defendant says the emails were attempts to salvage the Plaintiff's business and its relationship with the broadcaster and that there was nothing dishonest in his conduct.

On or about 12–13 August 2025 the Defendant informed the Plaintiff that he intended to leave and, shortly thereafter, the Plaintiff learned (through third‑party enquiries) of venue and event enquiries consistent with preparations for events by a competing venture.

A review of the Defendant's Plaintiff email account showed that on 7 August 2025 the Defendant deleted a number of older emails (and deleted them again from the deleted items folder); the Defendant admits the deletions and says he deleted the emails to prevent the Plaintiff's CEO from seeing them. The Plaintiff summarised the deleted material as including budget frameworks and spreadsheets for proposed events involving fighters contracted to the Plaintiff, drafts of correspondence with the Plaintiff's broadcaster proposing a new business that would exploit the broadcaster's facilities and channels, and other materials indicating the Defendant had worked on financial details for proposals that were not the Plaintiff's plans. The review also identified a double-deleted email on 20 August 2025 from a United States matchmaker about arranging a potential fight.

The Plaintiff believes the Defendant may have been assisted by another employee of the Plaintiff whom the Defendant manages. The Plaintiff says the Defendant's alleged conduct is incompatible with the duties he owed to the Plaintiff and seeks injunctive relief to restrain competitive activity pending trial.

Procedurally, the Plaintiff issued an application notice dated 1 September 2025 seeking an interim injunction restraining the Defendant from carrying out work for a competitor or potential competitor until trial or further order. The Plaintiff filed a claim form on 1 September 2025 seeking injunctive relief and damages. The application was supported by witness statements from the Plaintiff's CEO and the Plaintiff's Chief Legal Officer (both dated 1 September 2025). The Defendant filed a witness statement dated 11 September 2025 and, the day before the hearing, proposed a compromise form of restriction which the Plaintiff considered inadequate. The application was heard on notice to the Defendant on 12 September 2025. The parties anticipate an expedited trial in approximately November 2025.

This has been out for a while.

It sounds like Johnny Wish has been sneaky but he’s not the reason Boxxer lost their deal with Sky in my opinion. It’s the fact that Shalom was poor (after their first year) and their schedule wasn’t particularly good.

Several articles in National papers linking Shalom to Maz Majeed (notorious spot fixer from cricket), average shows and school boy errors (like getting the number of rounds wrong in the Whittaker/Cameron rematch, frequently pulling fighters out of purse bids on the day making them look bad) are what cost Shalom.

He also didn’t make any PPV fighters in his time on Sky. That’s not easy to do but would have changed things if he’d built a PPV star or two.

Posted: **05 Jan 2026, 05:29**

Twinkle Toes wrote: ↑04 Jan 2026, 20:36
Frostieballs wrote: ↑04 Jan 2026, 17:15 If that evidence holds, it’s very compelling.

Sky can afford the best legal advice as well.
The case from boxxer is against Whichusen not sky.

Yes - my bad

Posted: **05 Jan 2026, 05:57**

Twinkle Toes wrote: ↑04 Jan 2026, 20:36
Frostieballs wrote: ↑04 Jan 2026, 17:15 If that evidence holds, it’s very compelling.

Sky can afford the best legal advice as well.
The case from boxxer is against Whichusen not sky.

is it???

Posted: **05 Jan 2026, 07:51**

Spud MK2 wrote: ↑05 Jan 2026, 05:57
is it???

The case is against Whichusen:

'The High Court case Boxxer Limited v John Wischhusen has the following identifiers:

Claim/Case Number: KB-2025-003244 (the official High Court claim number, issued on or around 1 September 2025 in the King's Bench Division).
Neutral Citation (for the interim injunction judgment): [2025] EWHC 2386 (KB) (handed down on 19 September 2025 by Mrs Justice Hill).'

There is no case or claim of boxxer suing sky sports.

Posted: **05 Jan 2026, 08:26**

johnmanchester wrote: ↑04 Jan 2026, 21:57
keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑03 Jan 2026, 15:50
Spud MK2 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2026, 15:31

my friend of a friend tells me ed robinson is in the position ln name onlynand has to allegedly go to Rob Selmes for permission to make a cup of tea
Spud, you're coming across as very childish and petty. You didn't used to be like this.
Basically someone at Boxxer seems to have given him the time of day and now he's like a full-kit wanker, flying the flag and getting all emotionally invested while parroting shite he's being fed.

Real industry insider behaviour

i have absolutely nothing to do with Boxxer or Ben Shalom

BoxRec

Ed Robinson & John Whichusen

Re: Ed Robinson & John Whichusen

Re: Ed Robinson & John Whichusen

Re: Ed Robinson & John Whichusen

Re: Ed Robinson & John Whichusen

Re: Ed Robinson & John Whichusen

Re: Ed Robinson & John Whichusen

Re: Ed Robinson & John Whichusen

Re: Ed Robinson & John Whichusen

Re: Ed Robinson & John Whichusen

Re: Ed Robinson & John Whichusen

Re: Ed Robinson & John Whichusen

Re: Ed Robinson & John Whichusen

Re: Ed Robinson & John Whichusen

Re: Ed Robinson & John Whichusen

Re: Ed Robinson & John Whichusen

Re: Ed Robinson & John Whichusen

Re: Ed Robinson & John Whichusen

Re: Ed Robinson & John Whichusen

Re: Ed Robinson & John Whichusen

Re: Ed Robinson & John Whichusen

Re: Ed Robinson & John Whichusen

Re: Ed Robinson & John Whichusen

Re: Ed Robinson & John Whichusen

Re: Ed Robinson & John Whichusen

Re: Ed Robinson & John Whichusen