BoxRec

Come on then … let’s have it out in the open! Who are we all?

Frostieballs wrote: ↑11 Apr 2026, 08:36 Come on then … let’s have it out in the open! Who are we all?

I'm Spartacus!

I’m Sean. I think…

brian1982 wrote: ↑11 Apr 2026, 10:10

Frostieballs wrote: ↑11 Apr 2026, 08:36 Come on then … let’s have it out in the open! Who are we all?

I'm Spartacus!

I’ve got a hunch you’re called Brian. Brian Spartacus!

According to Caseboard, the legal firm Russells is no longer representing Boxxer. The listed representative is now London Litigation Partnership.

Russells is a high power, very expensive outfit with a department specialising in sports, entertainment etc.

London Litigation Partnership appears to be... less heavyweight, let's say. There's only one solicitor listed on the LLP website.

The solicitor does offer "no win, no fee" arrangements though. Might be a good deal. Certainly should be less £££ than Russells.

johnmanchester wrote: ↑15 Apr 2026, 12:08 According to Caseboard, the legal firm Russells is no longer representing Boxxer. The listed representative is now London Litigation Partnership.

Russells is a high power, very expensive outfit with a department specialising in sports, entertainment etc.

London Litigation Partnership appears to be... less heavyweight, let's say. There's only one solicitor listed on the LLP website. B

The solicitor does offer "no win no fee" arrangements though. Might be a good deal. Certainly should be less £££ than Russells.

I am informed you are very accurate with
Your information.

I am also told this STOPs the tactics
Of intentionally causing delays so one side
Runs out of money
.

Spud MK2 wrote: ↑15 Apr 2026, 12:22

johnmanchester wrote: ↑15 Apr 2026, 12:08 According to Caseboard, the legal firm Russells is no longer representing Boxxer. The listed representative is now London Litigation Partnership.

Russells is a high power, very expensive outfit with a department specialising in sports, entertainment etc.

London Litigation Partnership appears to be... less heavyweight, let's say. There's only one solicitor listed on the LLP website. B

The solicitor does offer "no win no fee" arrangements though. Might be a good deal. Certainly should be less £££ than Russells.

I am informed you are very accurate with
Your information.

I am also told this STOPs the tactics
Of intentionally causing delays so one side
Runs out of money
.

Yeah I mean the info is right there on Caseboards - https://caseboard.io/cases/7fbb60ee-7b0 ... 333e3abb10

And then from there obviously just Google who / what LLP is

Might be a canny tactical switch, if Russells have done the heavy lifting.

I don't see how it would stop other parties delaying anything though.

What on earth does this mean?

Spud MK2 wrote: ↑15 Apr 2026, 13:17 What on earth does this mean?

I have no idea what you are confused about. What are you referring to? I've looked at my previous post and it all seems perfectly clear. Which bit are you not getting?

johnmanchester wrote: ↑15 Apr 2026, 14:36

Spud MK2 wrote: ↑15 Apr 2026, 13:17 What on earth does this mean?

I have no idea what you are confused about. What are you referring to? I've looked at my previous post and it all seems perfectly clear. Which bit are you not getting?

He’s on about his own post.

He doesn’t understand it

I love dipping in and out of this thread from time to time. surreal comedy

johnmanchester wrote: ↑15 Apr 2026, 12:08 According to Caseboard, the legal firm Russells is no longer representing Boxxer. The listed representative is now London Litigation Partnership.

Russells is a high power, very expensive outfit with a department specialising in sports, entertainment etc.

London Litigation Partnership appears to be... less heavyweight, let's say. There's only one solicitor listed on the LLP website.

The solicitor does offer "no win, no fee" arrangements though. Might be a good deal. Certainly should be less £££ than Russells.

Shame they are setup as a limited company rather than a limited liability partnership. A terrible missed opportunity to be abbreviated to ‘LLP LLP’.

Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑15 Apr 2026, 18:16

johnmanchester wrote: ↑15 Apr 2026, 12:08 According to Caseboard, the legal firm Russells is no longer representing Boxxer. The listed representative is now London Litigation Partnership.

Russells is a high power, very expensive outfit with a department specialising in sports, entertainment etc.

London Litigation Partnership appears to be... less heavyweight, let's say. There's only one solicitor listed on the LLP website.

The solicitor does offer "no win, no fee" arrangements though. Might be a good deal. Certainly should be less £££ than Russells.

Shame they are setup as a limited company rather than a limited liability partnership. A terrible missed opportunity to be abbreviated to ‘LLP LLP’.

golden_labrador wrote: ↑15 Apr 2026, 17:49 I love dipping in and out of this thread from time to time. surreal comedy

Surreal is the word. Some of the interactions have me feeling like I've accidentally eaten a bag of acid

johnmanchester wrote: ↑16 Apr 2026, 04:03

Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑15 Apr 2026, 18:16

johnmanchester wrote: ↑15 Apr 2026, 12:08 According to Caseboard, the legal firm Russells is no longer representing Boxxer. The listed representative is now London Litigation Partnership.

Russells is a high power, very expensive outfit with a department specialising in sports, entertainment etc.

London Litigation Partnership appears to be... less heavyweight, let's say. There's only one solicitor listed on the LLP website.

The solicitor does offer "no win, no fee" arrangements though. Might be a good deal. Certainly should be less £££ than Russells.

Shame they are setup as a limited company rather than a limited liability partnership. A terrible missed opportunity to be abbreviated to ‘LLP LLP’.

golden_labrador wrote: ↑15 Apr 2026, 17:49 I love dipping in and out of this thread from time to time. surreal comedy

Surreal is the word. Some of the interactions have me feeling like I've accidentally eaten a bag of acid

Imagine the mic drop moment if it turns out Spud is John Manchester

SeanBrennan wrote: ↑16 Apr 2026, 14:18 Imagine the mic drop moment if it turns out Spud is John Manchester

shhh...no spoilers

Isn’t the fella being sued called John

After reading the following paragraph taken from the court papers its very hard not to think Shalom has got the case by the knackers



When you read the above wichussen makes a clear and unquovocal admission of that he has done wrong and worst still he admits to destroying some of the evidence.

The question has to be what role did Wassund, Sky Boxing (Selmes & Robinson, in the the booking of venues, approaching boxer's, phone calls, signing and allegedly
Making signings. If they took a management stance
Questions have to asked:

Did sky boxing breach competition rules
By accepting whichussen as their promoter.
It makes sense why whichussen opened up Blue wolf sports group on 5 August.

But, prior to a temporary injunction being granted against Wichusen on 19 Sep, his assistant director Wassund opened a company on 15 sep.

If either company complted work after 19 sep was there a breach or breaches of the injunction

Another question what are the chances of sky dumping
On wichussem to save their reputation

Spud MK2 wrote: ↑17 Apr 2026, 19:03 After reading the following paragraph taken from the court papers its very hard not to think Shalom has got the case by the knackers



When you read the above wichussen makes a clear and unquovocal admission of that he has done wrong and worst still he admits to destroying some of the evidence.

The question has to be what role did Wassund, Sky Boxing (Selmes & Robinson, in the the booking of venues, approaching boxer's, phone calls, signing and allegedly
Making signings. If they took a management stance
Questions have to asked:

Did sky boxing breach competition rules
By accepting whichussen as their promoter.
It makes sense why whichussen opened up Blue wolf sports group on 5 August.

But, prior to a temporary injunction being granted against Wichusen on 19 Sep, his assistant director Wassund opened a company on 15 sep.

If either company complted work after 19 sep was there a breach or breaches of the injunction

In the image you've posted, where you say it's a clear admission of guilt by Wischusen, the quoted text has Wischusen saying he's done nothing dishonest.

I'm not sure saying "I haven't done anything wrong" counts as a "clear admission of guilt"?

As to the rest of it, I am not sure why Boxxer seem to feel Sky was obliged to renew them.

I can only imagine this case stems on some technicality where there was some sort of "exclusive renegotiation period" in the contract

But then Sky will surely be able to pull out instances in the past where boxxer was either told it wasn't being renewed, and /or was in breach of contract.

Maybe they're alleging some sort of tortious interference with contract as well.

I feel like Boxxer case must hinge entirely on boxxer assuming they would be renewed by default and that Sky had no right not to renew them.

So if Sky is able to pull out evidence that it considered boxxer to be garbage /non renewable /problematic from X date, that should put paid to that.

But we'll have to wait and see.

Have you seen the contracts and evidence bundles Spud? Have you read the particulars of claim? What's your opinion based on all that inside info the public hasn't seen?

Spud MK2 wrote: ↑17 Apr 2026, 19:23 Another question what are the chances of sky dumping
On wichussem to save their reputation

"save their reputation"

Nobody is paying any attention to this tiny little court case in a tiny little fringe sport.

Sky will be alright lol, I wouldn't worry about Sky.

Maybe you could channel your energies into helping boxxer find a new TV home after bbc?

Expect a standalone Azim event in May but beyond that I don't think the bbc are renewing the 4-event deal boxxer got.

You could be the lynchpin in finding a new deal and get a finders fee and maybe a job title! Really be in the game. Real player.

John Manchester,

Please tell me why the on earth do you and others shoot your load at the legal team at sky .. the are not beyond reproach❓❓

These kinda threads just feel like legal dramas

Spud MK2 wrote: ↑18 Apr 2026, 08:44 John Manchester,

Please tell me why the on earth do you and others shoot your load at the legal team at sky .. the are not beyond reproach

You are not allowed to ask any questions until you answer all the questions you keep avoiding

😉
After the court case has finished i will tell you something that will make you p*ss yourself with laughter.