Page 3 of 5

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 05 Jun 2012, 08:18
by leforge
gobbles wrote:
jameswilson wrote:If the Luxembourg board choose to pull out, another board will sanction it who doesn't fall under the EBU and because of the laws they will still be able to hold the fight at Upton Park.

This fight is in absolutely no danger of not happening.

For the first time now, I think the fight is more likely not to happen. If Luxembourg pulls out, it kills all legitimacy. All this talk of Mickey Vann, but they need more than a ref and 3 judges to run a big show. Where are all the officials coming from? If the WBA back out of the show and Povetkin-Rahman is off, who pays for the TV production costs, which at an big outdoor show are massive.

It would not surprise me if Haye signs to fight Vitali in September and leaves all the mess in Frank's lap.
If this happen. Will they be able to refund the ticket holders?

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 05 Jun 2012, 08:24
by Finn
leforge wrote:
gobbles wrote:
jameswilson wrote:If the Luxembourg board choose to pull out, another board will sanction it who doesn't fall under the EBU and because of the laws they will still be able to hold the fight at Upton Park.

This fight is in absolutely no danger of not happening.

For the first time now, I think the fight is more likely not to happen. If Luxembourg pulls out, it kills all legitimacy. All this talk of Mickey Vann, but they need more than a ref and 3 judges to run a big show. Where are all the officials coming from? If the WBA back out of the show and Povetkin-Rahman is off, who pays for the TV production costs, which at an big outdoor show are massive.

It would not surprise me if Haye signs to fight Vitali in September and leaves all the mess in Frank's lap.
If this happen. Will they be able to refund the ticket holders?
My only worry would be can they afford to? if they went bankrupt the ticket holders would be fairly down the list of creditors i would have thought.

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 05 Jun 2012, 08:33
by leforge
kingfinn wrote:
leforge wrote:
gobbles wrote:
For the first time now, I think the fight is more likely not to happen. If Luxembourg pulls out, it kills all legitimacy. All this talk of Mickey Vann, but they need more than a ref and 3 judges to run a big show. Where are all the officials coming from? If the WBA back out of the show and Povetkin-Rahman is off, who pays for the TV production costs, which at an big outdoor show are massive.

It would not surprise me if Haye signs to fight Vitali in September and leaves all the mess in Frank's lap.
If this happen. Will they be able to refund the ticket holders?
My only worry would be can they afford to? if they went bankrupt the ticket holders would be fairly down the list of creditors i would have thought.
You would hope the tikcet agency have not advanced all the ticket sales

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 05 Jun 2012, 08:35
by Finn
leforge wrote:
kingfinn wrote:
leforge wrote: If this happen. Will they be able to refund the ticket holders?
My only worry would be can they afford to? if they went bankrupt the ticket holders would be fairly down the list of creditors i would have thought.
You would hope the tikcet agency have not advanced all the ticket sales
Hopefully, what happens if they pull the plug on the haye v chisora fight and replace it with another fight? Is Povetkin off the bill now?

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 05 Jun 2012, 08:37
by gobbles
leforge wrote:
kingfinn wrote:
leforge wrote: If this happen. Will they be able to refund the ticket holders?
My only worry would be can they afford to? if they went bankrupt the ticket holders would be fairly down the list of creditors i would have thought.
You would hope the tikcet agency have not advanced all the ticket sales
Maybe they'll just switch the main event and have Nathan Cleverly defending his WBO title against a late notice sub?

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 05 Jun 2012, 08:37
by Finn
gobbles wrote:
leforge wrote:
kingfinn wrote: My only worry would be can they afford to? if they went bankrupt the ticket holders would be fairly down the list of creditors i would have thought.
You would hope the tikcet agency have not advanced all the ticket sales
Maybe they'll just switch the main event and have Nathan Cleverly defending his WBO title against a late notice sub?
:lol:

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 05 Jun 2012, 08:38
by leforge
gobbles wrote:
leforge wrote:
kingfinn wrote: My only worry would be can they afford to? if they went bankrupt the ticket holders would be fairly down the list of creditors i would have thought.
You would hope the tikcet agency have not advanced all the ticket sales
Maybe they'll just switch the main event and have Nathan Cleverly defending his WBO title against a late notice sub?
Please do not say that. Their be lot of unhappy ticket holders.

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 05 Jun 2012, 08:42
by Finn

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 05 Jun 2012, 08:46
by gobbles
kingfinn wrote:heres FW's response -

http://www.allegedly.com/news/press-r ... go-on.html

Love the use of online polls to justify the fight. Wasn't it the Boxing News online poll that had a majority picking Audley to beat Haye?

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 05 Jun 2012, 08:50
by Finn
gobbles wrote:
kingfinn wrote:heres FW's response -

http://www.allegedly.com/news/press-r ... go-on.html

Love the use of online polls to justify the fight. Wasn't it the Boxing News online poll that had a majority picking Audley to beat Haye?
and that degale would beat groves :lol:

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 05 Jun 2012, 08:50
by leforge
gobbles wrote:
kingfinn wrote:heres FW's response -

http://www.allegedly.com/news/press-r ... go-on.html

Love the use of online polls to justify the fight. Wasn't it the Boxing News online poll that had a majority picking Audley to beat Haye?
He hardly going to say anything different at this stage. Would not surprise me if their a pull out week of fight.

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 05 Jun 2012, 09:57
by Freiheit
The german non-EBU board GBA offered Chisora a licens the day after it was revoked, so they might be an option.

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 05 Jun 2012, 09:59
by leforge
Freiheit wrote:The german non-EBU board GBA offered Chisora a licens the day after it was revoked, so they might be an option.
Hardly a credible outfit.

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 05 Jun 2012, 10:00
by dondada
Freiheit wrote:The german non-EBU board GBA offered Chisora a licens the day after it was revoked, so they might be an option.
That doesn't surprise me. 8)

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 05 Jun 2012, 12:49
by leforge
dondada wrote:
Freiheit wrote:The german non-EBU board GBA offered Chisora a licens the day after it was revoked, so they might be an option.
That doesn't surprise me. 8)
How they going to try call that a credible organisation!

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 05 Jun 2012, 13:05
by Darcy Delaney
Greavesy wrote:
kingfinn wrote:
MachoMan09 wrote:Once and for all for those questioning the legality of the match should it go unsanctioned: It would not be illegal. Consider all the sparring that takes place in boxing and martial arts clubs up and down the land, legal or illegal? Legal, obviously. The only differences between Haye vs Chisora at Upton Park rather than in some gym somewhere are the spectators, cameras, quantities of money involved, and hype.
But unlicensed boxing in its previous form before the EBF was illegal wasnt it?
Unlicensed boxing is completely legal

and to my knowledge always has been

the fact the bbboc are self appointed

and have no government ties

are what prevents it from being considered illegal i think
unlicenced boxing is not ILLEGAL as long as both party's wear gloves,? the reason it's called unlicenced is because the bbbc do not reconise the fights, so under bbbc rules the fights are unlicenced, the reason people think the fights might be illegal is because of the way the press covered the lenny mclean vs roy shaw fights back in the day, on the whole unlicenced boxing is a lot better run today than it's ever been, if you need any more info you can ask damian tucker on here as he's been involved in running so called unlicenced boxing :TU:

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 05 Jun 2012, 13:18
by palooka
Johnny Greaves knows both sides of it and I've seen a lot of sense in his posts.

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 05 Jun 2012, 13:43
by leforge
MachoMan09 wrote:Were the fight to end up unlicensed and then down the line, Haye, Chisora, or both were re-licensed. how many other current pros would choose to top up their wages on the unlicensed circuit?
Thats a dangerous road to go down. This fight could have happened in September on BBBoC licenced show but someone needs it now.

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 05 Jun 2012, 13:43
by keithmoonhangover
MachoMan09 wrote:Were the fight to end up unlicensed and then down the line, Haye, Chisora, or both were re-licensed. how many other current pros would choose to top up their wages on the unlicensed circuit?
They might call it an exhibition.

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 05 Jun 2012, 14:45
by Mimmy
Who runs unlicenced boxing in the UK? Why doesnt Mr W sell the fight to them or kind of sub contract it to an unlicenced group? This would surely be an unlicenced companys biggest ever night? Chisora proberly dont give a damn if hes banned for life and Haye well he aint got no licence anyway. Its a new direction that could split the BBBoC and reform with unlicenced guys who become licenced in their own control group. Its only like forming another sanctioning body which Mr W would/could be part of and blow the BBBoC away. We then have 2 bodies. Happens in other sports, and lets face it Mr W could start up another worl title belt, which would be a new licenced body.

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 05 Jun 2012, 15:14
by jameswilson
Ben Carey wrote:
jameswilson wrote:If the Luxembourg board choose to pull out, another board will sanction it who doesn't fall under the EBU and because of the laws they will still be able to hold the fight at Upton Park.

This fight is in absolutely no danger of not happening.
What other board then? Such as who? I'm not so sure.
The BBC are saying there's 5 others who would be willing. I'd imagine one of them would manage to get through everything that is trying to stop the promotion from happening.

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 05 Jun 2012, 15:50
by Coco
Are any of these EBU recognised commissions or just the likes of the EBF?

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 05 Jun 2012, 15:50
by dondada
MachoMan09 wrote:Were the fight to end up unlicensed and then down the line, Haye, Chisora, or both were re-licensed. how many other current pros would choose to top up their wages on the unlicensed circuit?
And how many do now? 8)

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 05 Jun 2012, 15:57
by Finn
Coco wrote:Are any of these EBU recognised commissions or just the likes of the EBF?
thats the million pound question. If the LBF arent allowed to license the fight how can any other EBU recognised boards be?

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Posted: 05 Jun 2012, 20:35
by jameswilson
leforge wrote:
Freiheit wrote:The german non-EBU board GBA offered Chisora a licens the day after it was revoked, so they might be an option.
Hardly a credible outfit.
Why does it need to be credible? If the fight happens at Upton Park and is licenced I doubt the winner is gonna be going 'Yeah delighted to win, I just wish it had been the British board that licenced it rather than the GBA it just makes such a difference to me.'