BoxRec

The Insider wrote:

kingfinn wrote:
It would be victimisation they cant ban fighters for being on undercards because FW manages them and they want to ban him. You're not even allowed to ban a girl from the scouts these days. The best they could do is refuse to work with Allegedly channel for which FW can go elsewhere for officials, they cant take boxers licenses away for being on the channel or linked with Allegedly channel fights. I guarantee you it would be illegal i dont care what their statement says.

If the BBBOC do not recognise the Luxembourg federation they are well within their rights to take whatever disciplinary action they deem necessary against the boards licence holders who "break the picket line".

Its not up to them to recognise another board, they are recognised by the EBU and the fight is still being sanctioned the WBO the BBBofC dont have a leg to stand on. All that will happen if the try playing hard ball is they will get taken to court and lose.

kingfinn wrote:

The Insider wrote:

kingfinn wrote:
It would be victimisation they cant ban fighters for being on undercards because FW manages them and they want to ban him. You're not even allowed to ban a girl from the scouts these days. The best they could do is refuse to work with Allegedly channel for which FW can go elsewhere for officials, they cant take boxers licenses away for being on the channel or linked with Allegedly channel fights. I guarantee you it would be illegal i dont care what their statement says.

If the BBBOC do not recognise the Luxembourg federation they are well within their rights to take whatever disciplinary action they deem necessary against the boards licence holders who "break the picket line".

Its not up to them to recognise another board, they are recognised by the EBU and the fight is still being sanctioned the WBO the BBBofC dont have a leg to stand on. All that will happen if the try playing hard ball is they will get taken to court and lose.

No. Its all there in regulation 4.12

Its the same as any other club (Be it golf, football or cricket). Clubs have rules and if you break them you face the consequences. The fight may well go ahead but the people associated with it may find themselves never working for/with the bbboc again.

CharlesListon wrote:I'm a regular reader and irregular poster on here and I'm fully aware that many posters have issues with the BBBOC.
I'm also sure that FW could well have a plan to set up an independent commision, hosted by the Luxemburg Boxing Federation and set himself up as a kind of Dana White business style promoter. He has the medium now in Allegedly channel to do so.
However, before we condemn the BBBOC..... how many shows have you heard of that have been sanctioned by Luxemburg? Are FW and the Lux Fed/board (whatever they are) able to provide the same insurance cover and medical requirements that were in place to assist Spencer Oliver and Gilbert Eastman?
If so, where will the medical staff come from.... Medico's interested in boxing and willing to support it are few and far between and already have BBBOC licences and therefore wont be working this show.
I'm not saying there will be issues similar to the Spencer and Gilbert instances on this show, thankfully they are few and far between, but if this is the thin end of the wedge its worth considering.
Also for those license holders considering risking their BBBOC tickets for this may want to consider speaking to Ricky Hatton, Joe Calzaghe, Tony Bellew and James DeGale plus a good few other less well known guys over the years about the loyalty and service that FW has provided.
The BBBOC are 100% right on this, anyone who thinks that Derek's and David's behaviour didnt deserve some kind of punishment clearly dont have the best interest of boxing as a whole at heart.
This is about boxing. An honourable sport. Anything less just isnt boxing. There is always the option that derek and david just sort a straightner out.

The insurance thing isn't an issue for this reason; a large number of small hall promoters staging BBBofC sanctioned fights got their public liability insurance via a block policy in place through the Professional Boxing Promoter's Association (PBPA). The board have tried to stop this and push them into taking their more expensive policy.

The PBPA was and is run by Bruce Baker, now of Luxembourg fame, so the insurance will be off the same standard.

In terms of medical procedures, they will of the same standard as the board. What I can see happening is if the Lux Fed begin staging regular shows they will run a tiered medical system, where unlike with the board, the level of medical checks needed will be dependant on what level they are at and how many rounds they are going to box. Many of the license holders have actually called for this system to be put in place with the board for years.

kingfinn wrote:

dondada wrote:

kingfinn wrote:Fighters above British level dont need the BBBofC infact the the BBBofC probably needs the fee's from their big money fights so they are shooting themselves in the foot. If they dont want to sanction one of the biggest promoters in the UK they are in danger of being side lined other organisations can be used or founded and other promoters may follow suite in order to get a better deal.

Say you're right.

Would that be good for boxing or bad for boxing?

What do you think the Board should do?

The board should have either banned chisora or had the appeal. Instead they have withdrawn his license but are now upset he's got one from somewhere else. It was stupidity on their part! They should have banned him for 6 months and been done with it. Haye doesnt care if they wont give him a license he's never going to fight at british level again anyway they should have given him reprimand.

At the end of the day the are a small organisation with limited power, they should have acted but taken into consideration that they can be bypassed and be stuck between a rock or a hard place. They now cant back down but dont actually have the power or financial resources to follow through with any real action. They are danger of having to compete with other boards entering the UK and putting them out of business.

Their best option now is to call a big meeting with all involved and get Haye and chisora to publicly apologise for their actions give them UK licenses and pretend they took the hard line and say they have been given a second chance blah blah blah but any future indiscretions will result in lengthy bans.

you cant reprimand someone who is a former boxer, haye was retired, in the eyes of the law he was just a member of the public when the post fight fracas with chisora happened.

Wake up call wrote:

CharlesListon wrote:I'm a regular reader and irregular poster on here and I'm fully aware that many posters have issues with the BBBOC.
I'm also sure that FW could well have a plan to set up an independent commision, hosted by the Luxemburg Boxing Federation and set himself up as a kind of Dana White business style promoter. He has the medium now in Allegedly channel to do so.
However, before we condemn the BBBOC..... how many shows have you heard of that have been sanctioned by Luxemburg? Are FW and the Lux Fed/board (whatever they are) able to provide the same insurance cover and medical requirements that were in place to assist Spencer Oliver and Gilbert Eastman?
If so, where will the medical staff come from.... Medico's interested in boxing and willing to support it are few and far between and already have BBBOC licences and therefore wont be working this show.
I'm not saying there will be issues similar to the Spencer and Gilbert instances on this show, thankfully they are few and far between, but if this is the thin end of the wedge its worth considering.
Also for those license holders considering risking their BBBOC tickets for this may want to consider speaking to Ricky Hatton, Joe Calzaghe, Tony Bellew and James DeGale plus a good few other less well known guys over the years about the loyalty and service that FW has provided.
The BBBOC are 100% right on this, anyone who thinks that Derek's and David's behaviour didnt deserve some kind of punishment clearly dont have the best interest of boxing as a whole at heart.
This is about boxing. An honourable sport. Anything less just isnt boxing. There is always the option that derek and david just sort a straightner out.

The insurance thing isn't an issue for this reason; a large number of small hall promoters staging BBBofC sanctioned fights got their public liability insurance via a block policy in place through the Professional Boxing Promoter's Association (PBPA). The board have tried to stop this and push them into taking their more expensive policy.

The PBPA was and is run by Bruce Baker, now of Luxembourg fame, so the insurance will be off the same standard.

In terms of medical procedures, they will of the same standard as the board. What I can see happening is if the Lux Fed begin staging regular shows they will run a tiered medical system, where unlike with the board, the level of medical checks needed will be dependant on what level they are at and how many rounds they are going to box. Many of the license holders have actually called for this system to be put in place with the board for years.

All I can see we going to get out of this is two board more titles and less credibility for the sport in the UK.

leforge wrote:

Wake up call wrote:

CharlesListon wrote:I'm a regular reader and irregular poster on here and I'm fully aware that many posters have issues with the BBBOC.
I'm also sure that FW could well have a plan to set up an independent commision, hosted by the Luxemburg Boxing Federation and set himself up as a kind of Dana White business style promoter. He has the medium now in Allegedly channel to do so.
However, before we condemn the BBBOC..... how many shows have you heard of that have been sanctioned by Luxemburg? Are FW and the Lux Fed/board (whatever they are) able to provide the same insurance cover and medical requirements that were in place to assist Spencer Oliver and Gilbert Eastman?
If so, where will the medical staff come from.... Medico's interested in boxing and willing to support it are few and far between and already have BBBOC licences and therefore wont be working this show.
I'm not saying there will be issues similar to the Spencer and Gilbert instances on this show, thankfully they are few and far between, but if this is the thin end of the wedge its worth considering.
Also for those license holders considering risking their BBBOC tickets for this may want to consider speaking to Ricky Hatton, Joe Calzaghe, Tony Bellew and James DeGale plus a good few other less well known guys over the years about the loyalty and service that FW has provided.
The BBBOC are 100% right on this, anyone who thinks that Derek's and David's behaviour didnt deserve some kind of punishment clearly dont have the best interest of boxing as a whole at heart.
This is about boxing. An honourable sport. Anything less just isnt boxing. There is always the option that derek and david just sort a straightner out.

The insurance thing isn't an issue for this reason; a large number of small hall promoters staging BBBofC sanctioned fights got their public liability insurance via a block policy in place through the Professional Boxing Promoter's Association (PBPA). The board have tried to stop this and push them into taking their more expensive policy.

The PBPA was and is run by Bruce Baker, now of Luxembourg fame, so the insurance will be off the same standard.

In terms of medical procedures, they will of the same standard as the board. What I can see happening is if the Lux Fed begin staging regular shows they will run a tiered medical system, where unlike with the board, the level of medical checks needed will be dependant on what level they are at and how many rounds they are going to box. Many of the license holders have actually called for this system to be put in place with the board for years.

All I can see we going to get out of this is two board more titles and less credibility for the sport in the UK.

Spot on. That's exactly where we're heading.

Pat Butcher wrote:

CharlesListon wrote:I'm a regular reader and irregular poster on here and I'm fully aware that many posters have issues with the BBBOC.
I'm also sure that FW could well have a plan to set up an independent commision, hosted by the Luxemburg Boxing Federation and set himself up as a kind of Dana White business style promoter. He has the medium now in Allegedly channel to do so.
However, before we condemn the BBBOC..... how many shows have you heard of that have been sanctioned by Luxemburg? Are FW and the Lux Fed/board (whatever they are) able to provide the same insurance cover and medical requirements that were in place to assist Spencer Oliver and Gilbert Eastman?
If so, where will the medical staff come from.... Medico's interested in boxing and willing to support it are few and far between and already have BBBOC licences and therefore wont be working this show.
I'm not saying there will be issues similar to the Spencer and Gilbert instances on this show, thankfully they are few and far between, but if this is the thin end of the wedge its worth considering.
Also for those license holders considering risking their BBBOC tickets for this may want to consider speaking to Ricky Hatton, Joe Calzaghe, Tony Bellew and James DeGale plus a good few other less well known guys over the years about the loyalty and service that FW has provided.
The BBBOC are 100% right on this, anyone who thinks that Derek's and David's behaviour didnt deserve some kind of punishment clearly dont have the best interest of boxing as a whole at heart.
This is about boxing. An honourable sport. Anything less just isnt boxing. There is always the option that derek and david just sort a straightner out.

You should post more mate

x2

Wake up call wrote:

leforge wrote:

Wake up call wrote: The insurance thing isn't an issue for this reason; a large number of small hall promoters staging BBBofC sanctioned fights got their public liability insurance via a block policy in place through the Professional Boxing Promoter's Association (PBPA). The board have tried to stop this and push them into taking their more expensive policy.

The PBPA was and is run by Bruce Baker, now of Luxembourg fame, so the insurance will be off the same standard.

In terms of medical procedures, they will of the same standard as the board. What I can see happening is if the Lux Fed begin staging regular shows they will run a tiered medical system, where unlike with the board, the level of medical checks needed will be dependant on what level they are at and how many rounds they are going to box. Many of the license holders have actually called for this system to be put in place with the board for years.

All I can see we going to get out of this is two board more titles and less credibility for the sport in the UK.

Spot on. That's exactly where we're heading.

We know why this fight is happening one reason only! This could end up as worst thing for the sport in the UK

Would it not be feasible that having a new second board could be better for boxing in the long run , if for example in any one city you had just one pet shop , theres no doubt that without competition the quality of those pets would suffer and would end up not as good a standard as those cities that have 2 or more of the same type of shop , maybe not the greatest example but im sure you get where im coming from here .

It could actually raise the standard long term , maybe .

damianhucker1 wrote:Would it not be feasible that having a new second board could be better for boxing in the long run , if for example in any one city you had just one pet shop , theres no doubt that without competition the quality of those pets would suffer and would end up not as good a standard as those cities that have 2 or more of the same type of shop , maybe not the greatest example but im sure you get where im coming from here .

It could actually raise the standard long term , maybe .

I doubt it all we have is more titles. The current board may not be that good but we need to change them not create another.

leforge wrote:

damianhucker1 wrote:Would it not be feasible that having a new second board could be better for boxing in the long run , if for example in any one city you had just one pet shop , theres no doubt that without competition the quality of those pets would suffer and would end up not as good a standard as those cities that have 2 or more of the same type of shop , maybe not the greatest example but im sure you get where im coming from here .

It could actually raise the standard long term , maybe .

I doubt it all we have is more titles. The current board may not be that good but we need to change them not create another.

i dont think the board isnt good , far from it , but they are in some ways a bit outdated , maybe a bit of competition would freshen things up a bit , the downside is that it could potentially mean the lower prestige of winning a lonsdale belt .

damianhucker1 wrote:Would it not be feasible that having a new second board could be better for boxing in the long run , if for example in any one city you had just one pet shop , theres no doubt that without competition the quality of those pets would suffer and would end up not as good a standard as those cities that have 2 or more of the same type of shop , maybe not the greatest example but im sure you get where im coming from here .

It could actually raise the standard long term , maybe .

We have 4 title awarding bodies...have they been a good thing for the sport or a bad thing?

damianhucker1 wrote:

leforge wrote:

damianhucker1 wrote:Would it not be feasible that having a new second board could be better for boxing in the long run , if for example in any one city you had just one pet shop , theres no doubt that without competition the quality of those pets would suffer and would end up not as good a standard as those cities that have 2 or more of the same type of shop , maybe not the greatest example but im sure you get where im coming from here .

It could actually raise the standard long term , maybe .

I doubt it all we have is more titles. The current board may not be that good but we need to change them not create another.

i dont think the board isnt good , far from it , but they are in some ways a bit outdated , maybe a bit of competition would freshen things up a bit , the downside is that it could potentially mean the lower prestige of winning a lonsdale belt .

Competition from another board no thanks. I want to see the best in UK fight the best not have two different titles.

i think fw needs to focus more on paying boxer who fight on is shows then trying to rip boxing apart. Boxing is some ppls living and needed to be treated like pros.

slapbangwhallop wrote:I'd have more sympathy with the BBBoC if they were a transparent democratically elected organisation!

They didnt seem to have an issue when they strong armed the Irish board into having British officials last month for Rogan-Fury.

which took place in the UK

rhino222 wrote:

kingfinn wrote:

dondada wrote: Say you're right.

Would that be good for boxing or bad for boxing?

What do you think the Board should do?

The board should have either banned chisora or had the appeal. Instead they have withdrawn his license but are now upset he's got one from somewhere else. It was stupidity on their part! They should have banned him for 6 months and been done with it. Haye doesnt care if they wont give him a license he's never going to fight at british level again anyway they should have given him reprimand.

At the end of the day the are a small organisation with limited power, they should have acted but taken into consideration that they can be bypassed and be stuck between a rock or a hard place. They now cant back down but dont actually have the power or financial resources to follow through with any real action. They are danger of having to compete with other boards entering the UK and putting them out of business.

Their best option now is to call a big meeting with all involved and get Haye and chisora to publicly apologise for their actions give them UK licenses and pretend they took the hard line and say they have been given a second chance blah blah blah but any future indiscretions will result in lengthy bans.

you cant reprimand someone who is a former boxer, haye was retired, in the eyes of the law he was just a member of the public when the post fight fracas with chisora happened.

i know that but if they had informally advised haye he was going to get a reprimand if and when applies for a license rather than giving the impression they would refuse him one. He would have most like gone and got a british license they could then say oh look we told haye off it wont happen again.

DP

The Insider wrote:

kingfinn wrote:

The Insider wrote: If the BBBOC do not recognise the Luxembourg federation they are well within their rights to take whatever disciplinary action they deem necessary against the boards licence holders who "break the picket line".

Its not up to them to recognise another board, they are recognised by the EBU and the fight is still being sanctioned the WBO the BBBofC dont have a leg to stand on. All that will happen if the try playing hard ball is they will get taken to court and lose.

No. Its all there in regulation 4.12

Its the same as any other club (Be it golf, football or cricket). Clubs have rules and if you break them you face the consequences. The fight may well go ahead but the people associated with it may find themselves never working for/with the bbboc again.

Thats where you're wrong clubs have rules and regulations but people can still take clubs to court and courts can force those clubs to accept you or change the rules if they see fit.

Just because a regulation or contract has been drawn up doesnt mean to say it is legal, thats how people get out of contracts.

Just reading the "Burns/Mitchell" thread has made me think, Any UK-based trainer/manager who agrees to put their fighter on this show is taking a real leap of faith.

Oh well, if it goes wrong there's always the "Lux Fed British Title" to challenge for.

Wake up call wrote:

CharlesListon wrote:I'm a regular reader and irregular poster on here and I'm fully aware that many posters have issues with the BBBOC.
I'm also sure that FW could well have a plan to set up an independent commision, hosted by the Luxemburg Boxing Federation and set himself up as a kind of Dana White business style promoter. He has the medium now in Allegedly channel to do so.
However, before we condemn the BBBOC..... how many shows have you heard of that have been sanctioned by Luxemburg? Are FW and the Lux Fed/board (whatever they are) able to provide the same insurance cover and medical requirements that were in place to assist Spencer Oliver and Gilbert Eastman?
If so, where will the medical staff come from.... Medico's interested in boxing and willing to support it are few and far between and already have BBBOC licences and therefore wont be working this show.
I'm not saying there will be issues similar to the Spencer and Gilbert instances on this show, thankfully they are few and far between, but if this is the thin end of the wedge its worth considering.
Also for those license holders considering risking their BBBOC tickets for this may want to consider speaking to Ricky Hatton, Joe Calzaghe, Tony Bellew and James DeGale plus a good few other less well known guys over the years about the loyalty and service that FW has provided.
The BBBOC are 100% right on this, anyone who thinks that Derek's and David's behaviour didnt deserve some kind of punishment clearly dont have the best interest of boxing as a whole at heart.
This is about boxing. An honourable sport. Anything less just isnt boxing. There is always the option that derek and david just sort a straightner out.

The insurance thing isn't an issue for this reason; a large number of small hall promoters staging BBBofC sanctioned fights got their public liability insurance via a block policy in place through the Professional Boxing Promoter's Association (PBPA). The board have tried to stop this and push them into taking their more expensive policy.

The PBPA was and is run by Bruce Baker, now of Luxembourg fame, so the insurance will be off the same standard.

In terms of medical procedures, they will of the same standard as the board. What I can see happening is if the Lux Fed begin staging regular shows they will run a tiered medical system, where unlike with the board, the level of medical checks needed will be dependant on what level they are at and how many rounds they are going to box. Many of the license holders have actually called for this system to be put in place with the board for years.

Public Liability insurance is very different from the Board's insurance scheme. Would the boxer get a payout from Mr Baker's plab, or is it just to protect the promoter from being sued in the event of an injury/accident.

Also, how can you make any claims about the Luxembourg federation. They have 1 doctor associated with them (not employed). They have put on 1 show in the past 18 months. Any claims about their competance are hot air with nothing to back them up.
If a boxer gets injured on their shows, will there be anyone around to sue or claim from?

magnus wrote:Just reading the "Burns/Mitchell" thread has made me think, Any UK-based trainer/manager who agrees to put their fighter on this show is taking a real leap of faith.

Well, at least the licence holders who have slagged the Board to f**k for years have got an opportunity to jump ship now.

kingfinn wrote:

The Insider wrote:

kingfinn wrote:
Its not up to them to recognise another board, they are recognised by the EBU and the fight is still being sanctioned the WBO the BBBofC dont have a leg to stand on. All that will happen if the try playing hard ball is they will get taken to court and lose.

No. Its all there in regulation 4.12

Its the same as any other club (Be it golf, football or cricket). Clubs have rules and if you break them you face the consequences. The fight may well go ahead but the people associated with it may find themselves never working for/with the bbboc again.

Thats where you're wrong clubs have rules and regulations but people can still take clubs to court and courts can force those clubs to accept you or change the rules if they see fit.

Just because a regulation or contract has been drawn up doesnt mean to say it is legal, thats how people get out of contracts.

Your just clutching at straws there mate basically saying anyone can take anyone to court, its silly. There is no way in hell that DelBoy could possibly get a court to enforce that the board must reinstate his licence after it was revoked for misconduct and not being a fit person to hold a licence. If you didnt like the rules in the first place you dont join the club. If you cant abide by the clubs rules, your asked to leave or you go and find another one. If any licence holder breaks the boards rules they will be out, its as simple as that, and i fully expect them to enforce it. Getting out of contracts has no relevence to whats happening.

dondada wrote:

magnus wrote:Just reading the "Burns/Mitchell" thread has made me think, Any UK-based trainer/manager who agrees to put their fighter on this show is taking a real leap of faith.

Well, at least the licence holders who have slagged the Board to f**k for years have got an opportunity to jump ship now.

Yeah, from the Titanic to the Lusitania :)

My view is simple , The bbbc for years have been , beating there chests and been unfair , making up rules has they go along Quoting the rules mainly when it suits them ,, All along when there taking money of promoters , unethical ,, then allowing promotors to get away with refusing to pay fighters ,, biggest debacle was Calagzie , threatening to take liscences , refusing liscences ,, and generally playing hard ball , and i'm the stern headmaster with the fighters ,,, while all along , they have allowed incompetent judges , and referee's to get away with murder and the jobs for the boys never ceased ,,,, Cast your mind back to some of the biassed refereeing when Hatton was fighting .

Now they ban Derek for what ,, spitting water slapping Klitcko . Its well documented that them brothers like to play mind games so he retaliated so what , a 6 month suspension would of done the job ,, Then theres the fight with Haye ,,, well alls he done was got of his chair to go to a heckler in the audience giving him shit ,, Haye through the first punch not Chisora. That should'nt of been took into account

Haye well , he started the fight , but was not a member and was part of joe public , they could of said its a public disorder probelm and the police can handle it ,, but no they puff there chests out have there meetings and decide to ban people from earning a living ,, based on that, boxer A goes to a nitghclub ,, smacks a guy for grabbing a feel of his wife, or whatever, and he can be banned because they are being policemen .

Well it looks like this time they have bit of more than they can chew and given , a certain promoter a chance to fullfill a life long ambition and become the new Dan of boxing .

So out with the old , in with the new lets welcome MR Frank , dana white Warren

The Insider wrote:

kingfinn wrote:

The Insider wrote:
No. Its all there in regulation 4.12

Its the same as any other club (Be it golf, football or cricket). Clubs have rules and if you break them you face the consequences. The fight may well go ahead but the people associated with it may find themselves never working for/with the bbboc again.

Thats where you're wrong clubs have rules and regulations but people can still take clubs to court and courts can force those clubs to accept you or change the rules if they see fit.

Just because a regulation or contract has been drawn up doesnt mean to say it is legal, thats how people get out of contracts.

Your just clutching at straws there mate basically saying anyone can take anyone to court, its silly. There is no way in hell that DelBoy could possibly get a court to enforce that the board must reinstate his licence after it was revoked for misconduct and not being a fit person to hold a licence. If you didnt like the rules in the first place you dont join the club. If you cant abide by the clubs rules, your asked to leave or you go and find another one. If any licence holder breaks the boards rules they will be out, its as simple as that, and i fully expect them to enforce it. Getting out of contracts has no relevence to whats happening.

Thats not what im saying at all, im saying clubs have to follow the set law im not debating it with you this is a fact! Del Boy probably couldnt get his license back through the courts he could try though, but that doesnt mean other people who felt their ban was unjustified couldnt.

There are set laws for clubs, association, agencies different types of clubs have different legal guidelines. The BBBofC would be breaking fair trade laws, discrimination laws and various other laws if they refused a license due to someone going on another board sanctioned card. People deamed as employees would be another matter.

The BBBofC can refuse the use of their license for the fight but they cant refuse a fighter a license without reasonable grounds because they are in effect the sole UK license providers; the bringing the BBBofC into disrepute isnt going to hold up in court if the card and fighter is licensed by an EBU recognised body.

Either way they are playing a dangerous game because the boxers who leave or fight on this card and get licensed by the lux board will increase the lux boards stake in the UK and reduce the BBBofC's monopoly in the UK.