Wake up call wrote:Ok let's make this as simple as possible because some people just do not get it.
THE FACTS
The Maltese Commission is not breaking any laws
British boxing is completely unregulated, therefore ANYONE can launch their own commission.
The BBBofC is not a regulator as it often claims because it is not a statutory body, it is entirely self-appointed.
The MBC exists under the same basis that the so-called "unlicensed" bodies do such as EBF etc.
There is actually no such thing as unlicensed as the term merely means non-BBBofC.
BBBofC is a limited company by guarantee, which gives it the same status has most charities.
The BBBofC does not belong to anyone. It has no shareholders and its liabilities are guaranteed by its members (ie license holders).
The MBC is a limited company by share capital. With one shareholder, meaning all profits go to that person.
CASE FOR MBC
Opportunities for boxers refused licences by the BBBofC
Lower fees for tight-fisted promoters
Opportunity for promoters to maximise profits by placing "white collar/so-called semi-pro" boxing on undercards (basically bouncers fighting against each other for couple of hundred if they are lucky. All fighters on ticket only deals).
CASE AGAINST MBC
Questionable medical procedures (despite Luca's attempts to mislead with jargon and half-truths).
Usage of unsuitable venues
Titles that are worthless
Multiple conflicts of interest. Including personal relationship with one female boxer.
Allowance of boxers to fight who are a clear danger to themselves.
Further dilution of boxing, causing confusing to fans.
Commission set up for profit, not for the good of the sport.
Questionable link to Malta. People in Malta dispute that Luca has any connection to the country and is only using its name to try appear like a legitimate national body.
Attempts to tag on to other bodies in order to obtain pseudo-credibility, including the Association of Boxing Commissions, which means absolutely jack poo outside of the US.
Launching of bogus titles using the names of sanctioning bodies which long ceased trading.
Allowance of white collar/ bouncer undercards, with these fighters only having to go through cheap amateur medicals (Luca will claim these are the responsibility of the EBF etc, but he is still allowing this on shows he has sanctioned and carry his branding).
Booted out of EBU after using duplicity to become a member in the first place.
WHY YOU SHOULD SUPPORT THE BBBofC OVER THIS TWO-BIT BODY
Excellent safety record
Long-standing, with a reputation that is recognised by the main governmental statutory bodies.
Accountability.
Non-profit organisation.
Prestigious titles and genuine links to leading European and world bodies.
Used by all leading promoters and boxers.
THE PROBLEM WITH ALLOWING MULTIPLE BODIES
While EU trade laws do not restrict the number of bodies operating within a sport, acceptance of multiple bodies and spurious titles further marginalises boxing as it makes it difficult to follow for fans.
Currently the Lonsdale Belt is the most beautiful and prestigious title in the sport. However, it will be grossly devalued if fans and people involved in boxing accept other "British" titles from other bodies.
Luca has attempted to claim that MBC boxers will be able to box for the Lonsdale belt but that is nonsense. That title is BBBofC sanctioned and MBC boxers are ineligible.
Allowing multiple sanctioning bodies can be a serious threat to safety. If a boxer is permitted to fight for multiple bodies, all of which have their own rules, there would be nothing to stop them getting knocked out and temporarily suspended by one body but ignoring that and boxing a week later for another body.
Boxers could also attempt to circumvent rules by boxing under differing bodies using different names. This has happened with two current BBBofC pros who fought each other on a "unlicensed" show under assumed names, despite them being at completely different weights.
The bottom line is that an acceptance of multiple bodies means more bogus titles, more average/poor fighters being able to call themselves champions, and more confusion when the sport is littered with enough mediocrity already.
If you want to see the way boxing could go in Britain, then look at the farce that is UK kickboxing or UK MMA. Too many titles, too many average "champions" and a general public that refuses to engage with it. There is virtually no money in these sports because most people do not give two hoots about them.
I was recently talking to a manager who had a lad come to his gym and ask how much he could earn if he became a pro boxer. The lad had been an MMA fighter and fought for a European title. The manager said "When you start out at four-round level, you're looking at around £800 to £1200 a fight as an away fighter. Same at home, but you'll be expected to sell tickets and be given an extra commission if you sell over a set amount." The kid replied: "Wow, that's good. I only got £300 for my European title fight".
A dilution of boxing means it loses prestige and in the long term that will push fans away, meaning smaller revenues and less money for the fighters. It is clear to any logical person that too many cooks spoil the broth and multiple bodies are to the detriment of the sport in this country.
Chances are my questions above relating to the 'rules' that BBBoC not allowing licence-holders to fight on non-board sanctioned events, even though they're recognised organisation, won't be answered. And i doubt that neither will my comments on the licence-holders being able to vote in people to run the body, or not.... But i'd also like to speculate on:-
CASE AGAINST MBC
Questionable medical procedures (despite Luca's attempts to mislead with jargon and half-truths).
What's in question exactly?
Usage of unsuitable venues
By whose standards - the BBBoC? And what makes their choices right and other's wrong?
Titles that are worthless
People have said the "Big four" are worthless on other threads, but this shouldn't be about titles, it should be about 'licensing' and 'regulatory' aspects.
Multiple conflicts of interest. Including personal relationship with one female boxer.
No comment. I've no idea. Though conflicts of interest could be anything; friends on the board issuing positions to other friends, etc.
Allowance of boxers to fight who are a clear danger to themselves.
Really? Who?
Anyone like to comment on why the BBBoC allowed Robin Deakin to fight for so many years with such a poor record? Something like 1 win, 51 losses.
To me, that is absolutely shameful.
Further dilution of boxing, causing confusing to fans.
OK, i will agree on this. Boxing is an alphabet soup, but as long as the titles stay out of it then a licence is a licence, and safety regulations are safety regulations. If they're the same, what's the problem?
Commission set up for profit, not for the good of the sport.
Nothing wrong in making a profit from boxing. Why do you think there is a problem? If the overall costs to the members are lower, surely this is a good thing? (we've already covered standards above)
Questionable link to Malta. People in Malta dispute that Luca has any connection to the country and is only using its name to try appear like a legitimate national body.
What has this to do with anything? How does this affect the safety of an event?
Attempts to tag on to other bodies in order to obtain pseudo-credibility, including the Association of Boxing Commissions, which means absolutely jack poo outside of the US.
The ABC has all the big organisations as members. Not sure if it's mandatory to operate in the US, however, the ABC also oversees all combat sports such as MMA and Kickboxing. I'm pretty sure it has some credibility.
Launching of bogus titles using the names of sanctioning bodies which long ceased trading.
Not sure about this one myself. Which bodies are they? I thought the original WBU was bought by an American, and also the German version copied the name but are separate. I've no idea about the WBF's (there's a few of them i notice).
Allowance of white collar/ bouncer undercards, with these fighters only having to go through cheap amateur medicals (Luca will claim these are the responsibility of the EBF etc, but he is still allowing this on shows he has sanctioned and carry his branding).
? Unsure how the MBC do tings, but as a promoter under the WBC's Muay Thai division, the WBC would ONLY sanction the WBC title fights. Nothing else. They wouldn't oversee the show, or any of the undercard. You tend to notice that when you read the rules & regulations books of sanctioning bodies, they clearly tell you this, and that the promoter must meet the requirements of the territory, or national federation of the territory. Which in the UK, we are completely unregulated. I AGREE that the undercard shouldn't have white collar/semi-pro (unsure what the hell a bouncer undercard is) bouts on, but it's the promoter's choice, nobody elses. Also, i believe that there was a boxing show in London whereby it coud be argued that the BBBoC 'allowed' non-BBBoC bouts onto their card as there were a number of bouts that took place 'after' the BBBoC bouts. Tell me the difference please? (i believe this was at the Royal Albert Hall)
Booted out of EBU after using duplicity to become a member in the first place.
Interesting. I didn't know that. Someone have info on this please? What was the duplicity part?
dw01 wrote:The BBBofC does not belong to anyone. It has no shareholders and its liabilities are guaranteed by its members (ie license holders).
Does the licence holders get a say in who runs the BBBoC, and who the actual Board members are?
Who voted these people in?
Mr. Charles Giles
Mr. John Rees QC
Mr. John Williamson MBE
Mr. Robert W. Smith
There's been rumours that the BBBoC is owned by its licence holders, but do they actually have a say?
Robert smith is a full time employee of the board so wouldn't be voted in he is the general secretary
So who appointed Smith in his role? What was the criteria and who manged the selection process ?
Also, who does he report to on a day to day basis ?
Based on previous comments about the structure of the Board, this should be the members? How many members were consulted in this process?
The Board remind me of some stereotype - you know, old fashioned white, old age blazer wearing men who like to pretend that they are important and look after the members interest whereas in reality they are primarily looking after their own self serving interests and those of a very few powerful members.
Said a while ago i could see changes happening with this situation,be intresting to see how it pans out though and the court case with the BBofC,pretty sure i seen Scott Allan on a poster for the Malta Scotland,whats the script here assuming he boxes he'll have his licence revoked?
dw01 wrote:The BBBofC does not belong to anyone. It has no shareholders and its liabilities are guaranteed by its members (ie license holders).
Does the licence holders get a say in who runs the BBBoC, and who the actual Board members are?
Who voted these people in?
Mr. Charles Giles
Mr. John Rees QC
Mr. John Williamson MBE
Mr. Robert W. Smith
There's been rumours that the BBBoC is owned by its licence holders, but do they actually have a say?
Robert smith is a full time employee of the board so wouldn't be voted in he is the general secretary
So who appointed Smith in his role? What was the criteria and who manged the selection process ?
Also, who does he report to on a day to day basis ?
Based on previous comments about the structure of the Board, this should be the members? How many members were consulted in this process?
The Board remind me of some stereotype - you know, old fashioned white, old age blazer wearing men who like to pretend that they are important and look after the members interest whereas in reality they are primarily looking after their own self serving interests and those of a very few powerful members.
The stewards run the BBBoC. I believe there are 14, seven of which are appointed by each area council. No one who has a financial interest in boxing can become a steward.
If you bothered to read their website, rather than just making up some vision of "old fashioned white, old age blazer wearing men", you could probably find out quite easily.
I had to laugh a little bit at this
Allowance of boxers to fight who are a clear danger to themselves.
Really? Who?
Anyone like to comment on why the BBBoC allowed Robin Deakin to fight for so many years with such a poor record? Something like 1 win, 51 losses.
To me, that is absolutely shameful.
i know robin hes a nice guy but if you really believe the bbbofc to be shameful for allowing him to fight,what is your view of malta after the bbbofc finally agreed with you and stripped robin of his licence Malta give him a licence and in his first fight for them let him fight a top former gb international??
No agreeing or disagreeing but really you got to know yr facts if yr having a go at someone and sticking up for someone else
I believe that the match making in bbbofc shows has got to be looked at, they need to do there jobs and start making equal fights and not sanctioning people with ridiculous records fighting against for say a podium level fighter or huge talents and them being cannon fodder, I don't believe in all this journeymen have roles etc, boys like Rogowski, Harris etc are sparked And punished most weekends, that's far most dangerous thing in boxing, also the bbbofc need to start putting there own interests at the back and looking after the most improtant people Im this buisness... The fans, how long we gonna rip them off?
A couple of points from that were that Baker was accused of acting as promoter and regulator and admitted he had not checked medical documents "He himself agreed that he did not check the medical records of any of the boxers. He "simply took the word of their managers".
Also the judge noted the following:
18. Any national governing body is free to stipulate that its members should comply with its rules and, if that is not acceptable, people are free to operate independently either individually or in combination with others.
The stewards run the BBBoC. I believe there are 14, seven of which are appointed by each area council. No one who has a financial interest in boxing can become a steward.
If you bothered to read their website, rather than just making up some vision of "old fashioned white, old age blazer wearing men", you could probably find out quite easily.
JamieM wrote:I believe that the match making in bbbofc shows has got to be looked at, they need to do there jobs and start making equal fights and not sanctioning people with ridiculous records fighting against for say a podium level fighter or huge talents and them being cannon fodder, I don't believe in all this journeymen have roles etc, boys like Rogowski, Harris etc are sparked And punished most weekends, that's far most dangerous thing in boxing, also the bbbofc need to start putting there own interests at the back and looking after the most improtant people Im this buisness... The fans, how long we gonna rip them off?
Jus for the sake of fairness did you see the results ofthe malta show this weekend?
20 second loss for a guy with 1 win and 12ko losses out of 12 defeats
1 round loss for a lad with a couple of wins and 10 losses 10 inside distance
1 round loss for a lad with 26 losses including 20 inside distance
another 1 round loss
a two round loss
a three round loss
and the best result of the night a fairly competative 4 round pts loss where the man lost every round.
Again while trying not to get involved when you knock the manner of matching on bbbofc shows you have to look at the shows you are comparing it too
The matchmaking issue is boxing full stop to be fair, promoters put their money into the lads, so they obviously want some return so will build them gradually etc, so although im not a fan of a lot of things the BBBoC are doing but i know theres no way the matchmaking can be questioned realistically, especially when the matchmakers are being effectively employed by the promoters, they have to protect their own income too and it can be a fine line to balance.
Jon I Amnt anything to do with Malta mate, Iv advised my brother who is a bbbofc license holder to stay with the board, my point is if the board have compitition then maybe it could enhance boxing in this country, I don't get how the board refuse fighters with Malta or Luxembourg licenses fighting on there shows, but work in conjunction with other boards, for me the board kinda act like bully's and look to alienate anyone who doesn't dance to their tune, course others will know more than me , but it doesn't matter who the governing body is for me , they need to stop ripping off the people who pay the bills, I'm sick of needing to lie to people and answers questions on such terrible match making,
jonp wrote:
Again while trying not to get involved when you knock the manner of matching on bbbofc shows you have to look at the shows you are comparing it too
So are you happy with the matchmaking authorised by the BBBofC?
As I said previously, most people on this site could pick at least 90% of the winners on any domestic show - this can't be right or beneficial for the sport, and to defend the current situation by saying that other bodies are worse is not the point and U.S. avoiding the issue.
Its a tricky thing matchmaking
If you match every fight 50 50 eventualy all your home fighters will get beat law of averages
when a fighter gets beat his fan base shrinks or disapears completely
When the home fighter loses his fans there are no home shows simple
The hard core fan who comes along to watch fights doesnt exist in a big enough degree to just put fights on that are 50 50
Also its a sad fact that fighters get thrown on the scrap heap after a loss or two so the pressure to keep that record leads to careful matching and managing.
This isnt a modern thing take a look at any great you see or world champ from the past and you will find a huge amount of 70 30 type matches in there career way more easy matches than hard matches especialy if they are a ticket selling home fighter.
My point was not the standard of matching but if you are going to lambast the board for there level of matching in defence of somebody its pretty redundent if the thing you are defending has actualy got a lot poorer standard of matching
i know robin hes a nice guy but if you really believe the bbbofc to be shameful for allowing him to fight,what is your view of malta after the bbbofc finally agreed with you and stripped robin of his licence Malta give him a licence and in his first fight for them let him fight a top former gb international??
No agreeing or disagreeing but really you got to know yr facts if yr having a go at someone and sticking up for someone else
Exactly the same, shameful. What's your point?
Let's be clear here. I am not saying that the MBC are going to do any better or worse job than the BBBoC, but what i am saying is that the BBBoC should NOT be allowed to have a monopoly over British professional boxing. Don't you think that?
There should be competition in all industries. Boxing is an industry and it operates under self-governing jurisdiction, however, the BBBoC seems to think it is above every other person or group involved in boxing, and think that they should be the only one to regulate professional boxing in the UK. WHY do they feel that way? Why are they so defensive towards outsiders wanting to do the same thing?
Let us all be straight here. We are all thinking it in our minds. The British Boxing Board of Control want to protect their licence revenue, and want to continue to control British boxing under the pretence that they are the only outfit fit enough to enforce safety procedures (that they have made up themselves) at board sanctioned events. Simple.
I'm an advocate of competition as I see it as healthy.
If the Board says you need a brain scan, and the MBC say you need a brain scan, then what's the difference?
If the Board says you need X,Y and Z, and the MBC say you need X, Y and Z, then again, what's the difference?
Let the MBC or whoever have a go at regulating professional boxing, see where it gets them. Time will tell.
JamieM wrote:Jon I Amnt anything to do with Malta mate, Iv advised my brother who is a bbbofc license holder to stay with the board, my point is if the board have compitition then maybe it could enhance boxing in this country, I don't get how the board refuse fighters with Malta or Luxembourg licenses fighting on there shows, but work in conjunction with other boards, for me the board kinda act like bully's and look to alienate anyone who doesn't dance to their tune, course others will know more than me , but it doesn't matter who the governing body is for me , they need to stop ripping off the people who pay the bills, I'm sick of needing to lie to people and answers questions on such terrible match making,
Few things there jamie its nothing to do with the board on the quality of the matches although they do knock back some of the worse matches.
The quality of the matches is down to the manager trainer and boxer on the home side they choose who they want and for lots of differnt reasons they wont take certain fights.This is the case 80 per cent of the time.
Then when you do get a home guy who is game for a good fight there is another problem one which you can attest too.Usualy the home guy is a decent fighter if hes game to fight any one now to get a good fight when the home guy is a good fighter you need a good away fighter.The problem is away fighters rarely get the rub of the green (as you have pointed out with ronnie) now if you need a good away fighter that usualy means hes ambitious if some is ambitious hes hardley going to go somewhere where everything is against him is he?
Occasionally you get a good fighter who will go away time and time again but it only takes so many close decisions going the wrong way or bit of luck happining for the home guy too many times and that game good away fighter loses ambition and becomes yr typical journyman.
Not a great situation but a situation that isnt new or anything differnt from whats been going on for years.
WAS THE BOARD WRONG IN THE WEAVER CASE? Sorry to stray off topic again. I just feel that the more and more you look into the BBBoC's operational methods, the more corrupt they seem.
Dear Mr. Smith and Mr. Giles
As you are fully aware my application for a British Boxing Board of Control licenses was refused, due to a small congenital arachnoid cyst, even though you had letters from Mr. Adrian Williams - Professor of Neurology, Mr. David Beale eminent Neuro-Radiologist, Mr. Jack Phillips Consultant Neurosurgeon and Mr. Paul L Grundy Consultant Neurosurgeon stating that this type of cyst is not unusual and that in their opinion I am fit to box.
Besides my own request being refused, I am aware that you have also refused two further boxers, who had applied around the same time as myself for the same, or similar, reasons.
Today I learned that one of those you had refused to license, Robbie Turley, has now been granted a license by yourself, following his team initiating legal proceedings against the BBBofC.
I find this highly hypocritical of the BBBofC, who refused to license myself even though you had received written statements from the Neurology specialists named above, each stating that they see no reason why I should not be licensed to box professionally, especially in light of the amount of international boxing contests for Team GB I undertook as an amateur.
In addition to the above issue I am disgusted that Mr. Smith and the BBBofC deliberately made misleading statements about myself, in a statement with regard to the case between the BBBofC and Mr. Bruce Baker, for a hearing that takes place in Cardiff today 19th November 2013.
In that statement Mr. Smith states As far as Iain Weaver is concerned the British Boxing Board of Control refused to grant him a license on medical grounds in that he has a large arachnoid cyst on his brain of a type known to be associated with increased risk of bleeding following trauma.
This action clearly shows the contrived and highly malicious intentions of Mr. Smith and the BBBofC, as the statements from the Neurology specialists named earlier clearly show:
Mr. Williams stated Iain has no neurological symptoms whatsoever. In particular, he has no headaches, dizziness or impairment of function of his limbs or vision.
I would not think there is any significant risk here, the cysts always worry people, but are really quite common incidental finding in the general population. If there is an increased risk of haemorrhage after a head injury it is extremely small, and in the vast majority of these cases these incidental findings cause no trouble clinically. I therefore do not think that there is any reason to stop him proceeding with his boxing career.
Professor Phillips stated, Having reviewed the scans and the correspondence in the case of Iain Weaver it is my opinion that there is not a neurosurgical impediment to his continuation with his boxing career. The MRI findings demonstrate a small middle fossa arachnoid cyst which has not undergone any adverse events in all his previous boxing events. I do not see a neurosurgical justification for preventing Iain Weaver from returning to his boxing activities.
Mr. Grundy stated, I reviewed this 22 year old right handed boxer, who has been boxing seriously since he was a child. He has had one hundred and fifteen bouts and spars regularly. He has never had a problem with headaches, blackouts, seizures, numbness, weakness or any neurological whatsoever at any stage. He is otherwise completely fit and well. An MRI scan of his brain has shown an incidental finding.
I have shown him the MRI scan today, which shows a small anterior middle fossa arachnoid cyst, which is very typical location of this benign, congenital, anomaly. There is no other major abnormality in the brain and there is no significant mass effect from the arachnoid cyst. The arachnoid cyst itself requires no intervention.
Arachnoid cysts are of course relatively common, benign, congenital, anomalies and in the vast majority of patients these never become symptomatic however, there have been a number of reports of haemorrhage into a cyst or sub-dural haematoma resulting from bleeding from cortical draining veins. This has been reported in arachnoid cysts of varying sizes. However, the reported incidence of haemorrhage for arachnoid cysts is exceptionally small, probably a fraction of a percentage of all cysts.
I have explained to Iain that I believe the risk of him developing a haemorrhage relating to this arachnoid cyst if he continues boxing is exceptionally low, but is obviously not as low as it would be in the absence of an arachnoid cyst. He has boxed for a significant amount of time, without any problems. He has a full understanding of the issues involved and is keen to continue boxing and on that basis I would support his application.
As the above statements clearly show that the cyst is small and is not prone to bleeding I believe this shows the contrived and highly malicious actions by Mr. Smith in making that statement to support the BBBofC case against Mr. Bruce Baker and also to deliberately and maliciously discredit Mr. Gianluca Di Caro, Vice President of the Malta Boxing Commission, who licensed myself after studying the reports etc.
On this matter Mr. Di Caro and the Malta Boxing Commission were not the first to agree to license me, the Spanish federation had agreed to do so but subsequently reneged, following undue pressure from Mr. Smith and Mr. Giles of the BBBofC via the European Boxing Union.
Since receiving a professional license from the Malta Boxing Commission I have also had my applications accepted by Nevada State (USA), California State (USA) and Mexico and have fought professionally four times, twice at York Hall in London on German Boxing Association sanctioned shows, once in California, USA, and once in Spain. In each case I won, twice on points, one KO and one TKO stoppage.
I am not alone in my disgust of the hypocrisy and malicious actions by the British Boxing Board of Control, not just in your dealings with regard to my application and subsequent licensing by the Malta Boxing Commission, but also that by your recent action of licensing Mr. Turley, clearly shows that you had no good reason to refuse his license in the first place, otherwise surely you would have been confident of your position in court.
Whilst I do not expect a response from yourself, with regard to the reviewing of my BBBofC license application, I feel that the BBBofC members, the boxing world and the general public deserve some sort of explanation from yourself, preferably a truthful one and not deliberately misleading like the statement I have highlighted in this letter.
dw01 wrote:i know robin hes a nice guy but if you really believe the bbbofc to be shameful for allowing him to fight,what is your view of malta after the bbbofc finally agreed with you and stripped robin of his licence Malta give him a licence and in his first fight for them let him fight a top former gb international??
No agreeing or disagreeing but really you got to know yr facts if yr having a go at someone and sticking up for someone else
Exactly the same, shameful. What's your point?
Let's be clear here. I am not saying that the MBC are going to do any better or worse job than the BBBoC, but what i am saying is that the BBBoC should NOT be allowed to have a monopoly over British professional boxing. Don't you think that?
There should be competition in all industries. Boxing is an industry and it operates under self-governing jurisdiction, however, the BBBoC seems to think it is above every other person or group involved in boxing, and think that they should be the only one to regulate professional boxing in the UK. WHY do they feel that way? Why are they so defensive towards outsiders wanting to do the same thing?
Let us all be straight here. We are all thinking it in our minds. The British Boxing Board of Control want to protect their licence revenue, and want to continue to control British boxing under the pretence that they are the only outfit fit enough to enforce safety procedures (that they have made up themselves) at board sanctioned events. Simple.
I'm an advocate of competition as I see it as healthy.
If the Board says you need a brain scan, and the MBC say you need a brain scan, then what's the difference?
If the Board says you need X,Y and Z, and the MBC say you need X, Y and Z, then again, what's the difference?
Let the MBC or whoever have a go at regulating professional boxing, see where it gets them. Time will tell.
They are having a go nobody is stopping them but surely new guys should be improving on the things people dont like about the current state of boxing not doing the same or worse?
Iv been to malta shows and am friends with the people who run them but if i see something that doesnt make sense i will point it out.
If you went to a allegedly show and the main event was being reffed by frank himself would you really be impressed by the standard of what was going on?
You're right, i don't think that promoters should have any involvement whatsoever in any officiating. That's just my opinion.
On another note: It brings up some very interesting (to me) links to sits/articles when you google 'BBBoC Corrupt'.
I think their days are soon to be numbered. They need to evolve and lose their aloofness, drop the bloody lahdy dahdy people with titles such as Baroness, etc, and let the licence-holders vote in true leaders with hands-on experience. But maybe they don't feel that the licence-holders should have a say.
Yes it could defo be improved thats for sure and it would be nice if a bit of competition actualy brought about that improvement.My only worry is if the competition is actualy doing a worse job ie matchmaking,level of fighters,white collar guys fighting on same show, then will the standard go down over all across the board?
Someone mentioned about 'unlicensed' boxing being on the uncercard of MBC events, as if the MBC has control over such things. However, look at this letter by the MBC to BBBoC (these are all public domain by the way). If you blame the MBC for allowing 'unlicensed' bouts on the undercard, then you should blame the BBBoC for allowing 'unlicensed' (well, licensed by the MBC) on their events too.
Malta Boxing Commission Open Letter to BBBofC
Fight Network Staff / October 24, 2013 - 11:52am
Specific attention: Mr Robert Smith, Mr Charles Giles, Mr Bob Logist and Mrs Enza Jacaponi
Dear Robert, Charles, Bob and Enza
As you are aware I personally authorised the Malta Boxing Commission sanctioning of Shiya Ozgul versus Chris Jenkinson, which took place immediately after the BBBofC sanctioned bouts concluded, at York Hall in London on Friday, 18th October 2013.
The sanctioning of the bout was legally and professionally undertaken, including full medical coverage – two doctors including a neurosurgeon, ambulance and two paramedics - as well as overseen by licensed officials, including timekeeper, supervisor, world renowned referee and two inspectors.
My reason for doing so, was initiated by the failure by the British Boxing Board of Control's head office to ensure that requests for information, such as the engagement of a foreign boxer, to reach ourselves in adequate time.
The letter from BBBofC head office arrived on the morning of the 17th October, we responded immediately and submitted the request by e.mail, after which we were informed that the request was submitted too late.
The promoter, TRAD TKO Events Johnny Eames, spoke with Dennis Gilmartin at BBBofC head office and explained the situation, unfortunately his pleas for assistance from the BBBofC fell on deaf ears.
I took particular umbrage over this, as this lack of support for a long time BBBofC license holder not only put the event in financial danger, but also would have prevented the two boxers involved in earning a living.
The BBBofC does not employ, or financially remunerate the boxers in any way, as such the BBBofC have no right to hinder or prevent any legally licensed professional boxer plying his or her trade with such restrictive action(s).
Whilst yes, the BBBofC is a professional boxing sanctioning organisation, it is also a members club and as such should be assisting the membership, not hindering them with restrictive practices.
As managing director of TKO Boxing Gym Limited I decided that the actions of the BBBofC were totally unreasonable and as such in my other role of co-founder and Vice President of the Malta Boxing Commission decided to ensure that the fight would indeed take place, in order to prevent both the financial loss to TRAD TKO Events as well as loss of earnings for the boxers.
In addition, as you are also aware the same week I authorised the Malta Boxing Commission licensing of WBO European Super Featherweight Champion Ben Jones, so that he could box Juli Giner in Barcelona, Spain on the 18th October.
I authorised the request after being informed that the BBBofC head office had refused permission, once again stating that the request arrived too late – even though it was e.mailed to the BBBofC head office some ten days prior, but not acted upon, allegedly due to Mr. Gilmartin being away from the office.
My actions were undertaken solely to ensure that Mr. Jones would be able to ply his trade, as is his legal right.
On the matter of the rights of European domiciled and licensed professional boxers to ply their trade within other European countries, I had previously consulted Lawyers specialising in European law to ensure that the Malta Boxing Commission operated within the parameters of European Union law.
However, to ensure there were no changes since doing so, I contacted lawyers again this week and have been assured that the rights of the boxers, to ply their trade, are the same as previously stated – as contained within the following EU directives and articles.
European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC.
Article 20(1) TFEU establishes the concept of EU citizenship by stating that 'Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union', while Article 21(1) TFEU provides that 'Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in this Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect'.
Additionally, please note that under current Home Office regulations, sportsmen attending an international competition do not need work permits.
I suggest that the BBBofC and the European Boxing Union and it's members - who had previously refused to allow their boxers to fight in the United Kingdom on Luxembourg Boxing Federation and German Boxing Association sanctioned events, due to objections by the BBBofC – take the time to study these directives and articles.
The British Boxing Board of Control IS NOT Government sanctioned, it does not have any legal standing or any right, to be the sole professional boxing sanctioning organisation operating within the United Kingdom, under European Law.
The BBBofC is a Limited Liability company, as such like any other company should refrain from operating restrictive practises in order to prevent competition in the field of operation, or face the consequences of their actions.
The European Boxing Union, which is also a Limited Liability company, are also subject to the same laws, both company and European.
It should be noted that Mr. Peter Stucki had stated in writing last year, that the EBU is only a Championship Sanctioning organisation and not a governing body.
As such the EBU should confine their actions to the sanctioning of European Championship Boxing and not involve themselves in politically motivated acts, as they did in the case of the expulsion of the Luxembourg Boxing Federation at the request of the BBBofC, as well as the case of an application by Iain Weaver for a Spanish license following objections by the BBBofC.
It should be noted, that on co-creating of the Malta Boxing Commission, I insisted that we base ourselves on the BBBofC, who I totally respected, as I felt the BBBofC were the elite National Sanctioning organisation within Europe, however since the recent removal of members voting rights and various other outrageous actions that have followed, I now feel that the BBBofC standing has fallen to an all time low.
The Malta Boxing Commission were also a proud member of the European Boxing Union, however my admiration for the organisation is also at an all time low, following the disgraceful way that the EBU allowed the BBBofC to manipulate the expulsion of the Luxembourg Boxing Federation as well as the assisting of the BBBofC in their efforts to coerce fellow EBU members to do their bidding.
Whilst the actions authorised by myself last week were due to exceptional circumstances and are not the Malta Boxing Commission's intended operating procedure, I/we reserve the right under European law to ply the trade of the Malta Boxing Commission and TKO Boxing Gym Limited, and it's associated companies, within the confines of Europe, including the United Kingdom, and as such should I/we ever feel that the BBBofC, the EBU or associated EBU members, apply any restrictive practices that affect the rights of our members, license holders and/or TRAD TKO boxers to ply their trade, I/we will ensure that the BBBofC and/or EBU and/or EBU Member organisation(s) face the consequences of their actions.
Yours sincerely
Gianluca Di Caro
Seems what's good for one is not good for the other.
?? But the board dont actualy allow that they took action about it.I have seen it put that the show in nottingham had one fight and then a number of fights with guys with no medical etc
Are you telling me malta had no knowledge of this happining and if so what action is being taken against the promoter?
Or is it allowed to have guys on a show with no medical.
Can you just answer that one not with a big post that actualy leads elsewhere
Did malta know there were fights happining with people without medicals?
