BoxRec

I give up.
Some people just don't get it.
Why haven't you answered my question danconnelly ?
If you were a boxer with aspirations to fight at British title level, and offered a lucrative deal to fight on the undercard, would you take it ?
Not hard - yes or no ?

Imo the Board have come to far not to pull FW's managers and promoters licences if the show goes ahead. If they don't it will undermine the Boards authority and everyone will then know that FW has the board in his pocket. He may well have a case to go and sue the Board, I don't know, but it will leave a lot of boxers without a manager and a promoter indefinitely while the court case goes on, or forever if FW has no right to take court action. Either way I don't think its looking good for anyone under FW's banner at this particular moment in time. It could be a different story in 6 months time though if a power shift is on the cards.......

twenty six wrote:I give up.
Some people just don't get it.
Why haven't you answered my question danconnelly ?
If you were a boxer with aspirations to fight at British title level, and offered a lucrative deal to fight on the undercard, would you take it ?
Not hard - yes or no ?

HA don't cry there are loads of post going on, was answering other questions
Yes I would, especially with FW's team of lawyer behind me

Thing is I'm not condeming it. This is the problem with a sport that can have a billion governing bodies. There is no other sport in the world like it!

danconnollyeire wrote:

dondada wrote:

danconnollyeire wrote:
Because they simply don't have grounds to withdraw his licence as he has not broken any rules. And it is resistricting his trade, as he wouldn't be able to put on British title fights etc...

The British title is the BBBoC's title. If you want to belong to the BBBoC, follow its rules.

Thing is, the mechanism for making and changing these rules needs changing...

FW has followed there rules. What rule exactly has he broke?

Reg 4.12?

If Luxembourg Fed are no longer recognised by the BBBOC and the EBU.

The Insider wrote:Imo the Board have come to far not to pull FW's managers and promoters licences if the show goes ahead. If they don't it will undermine the Boards authority and everyone will then know that FW has the board in his pocket. He may well have a case to go and sue the Board, I don't know, but it will leave a lot of boxers without a manager and a promoter indefinitely while the court case goes on, or forever if FW has no right to take court action. Either way I don't think its looking good for anyone under FW's banner at this particular moment in time. It could be a different story in 6 months time though if a power shift is on the cards.......

I think if he sues the board and wins they look much, much worse. Then he really has them in the pocket and they'll leave him to do his thing in the future. They need to look at there rules and see how they can adapt for the future. It was their mistake for not banning Chisora in the first place

Can you imagine how long this case will take Insider, should it resort to Civil Litigation ?
Anyway danconnelly don't pretend you haven't studied who's on the undercard.
Stacked high, isn't it ?
You need to study the rules a little closer mate.
You are clearly far braver than the majority of Bunny's fighters who have turned down undercard fights.
Oh and you seriously think Bunny would cover your legal costs ? Do me a favour

The Insider wrote:
Reg 4.12?

If Luxembourg Fed are no longer recognised by the BBBOC and the EBU.

They are recgonised by the EBU:

http://www.boxebu.com/

FEDERATION LUXEMBOURGEOISE DE BOXE


Tel. +35-2-26522703
c/o Mr Toni TIBERI, General Secretary

Fax. +35-2-26513698
1, rue des celtes L-4526 Niederkorn (Luxembourg)

e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Pierre BACK, President

twenty six wrote:Can you imagine how long this case will take Insider, should it resort to Civil Litigation ?
Anyway danconnelly don't pretend you haven't studied who's on the undercard.
Stacked high, isn't it ?
You need to study the rules a little closer mate.
You are clearly far braver than the majority of Bunny's fighters who have turned down undercard fights.
Oh and you seriously think Bunny would cover your legal costs ? Do me a favour

I have not even paid interest to the undercard
And if Warren's licence wasn't withdrawn, they wouldn't be able to go ahead and take mine, it doesn't work like that
What rules are they then, go on tell me these rules that say he's doing anything wrong? If you're right I'll hold my hands up

danconnollyeire wrote:

The Insider wrote:
Reg 4.12?

If Luxembourg Fed are no longer recognised by the BBBOC and the EBU.

They are recgonised by the EBU:

http://www.boxebu.com/

FEDERATION LUXEMBOURGEOISE DE BOXE


Tel. +35-2-26522703
c/o Mr Toni TIBERI, General Secretary

Fax. +35-2-26513698
1, rue des celtes L-4526 Niederkorn (Luxembourg)

e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Pierre BACK, President

Keep up at the back mate ;) http://news.boxrec.com/news/2012/exclus ... federation

danconnollyeire wrote:

dondada wrote:

danconnollyeire wrote:
Because they simply don't have grounds to withdraw his licence as he has not broken any rules. And it is resistricting his trade, as he wouldn't be able to put on British title fights etc...

The British title is the BBBoC's title. If you want to belong to the BBBoC, follow its rules.

Thing is, the mechanism for making and changing these rules needs changing...

FW has followed there rules. What rule exactly has he broke?

You're right, I know what you mean. Maybe he's in the right technically/legally. We'll have to see. Practically and morally are very different but you could be right.

As someone quite rightly pointed out to me recently, had the Board been as morally righteous as this in the past -for example by banning a licence holder whose company went into administration after failing to pay another licence holder - they wouldn't be where they are now. They looked the other way. They shouldn't have done.

The Insider wrote:

danconnollyeire wrote:

The Insider wrote:
Reg 4.12?

If Luxembourg Fed are no longer recognised by the BBBOC and the EBU.

They are recgonised by the EBU:

http://www.boxebu.com/

FEDERATION LUXEMBOURGEOISE DE BOXE


Tel. +35-2-26522703
c/o Mr Toni TIBERI, General Secretary

Fax. +35-2-26513698
1, rue des celtes L-4526 Niederkorn (Luxembourg)

e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Pierre BACK, President

Keep up at the back mate ;) http://news.boxrec.com/news/2012/exclus ... federation

Although I'm loathed to undermine what was an exclusive at the time, Insider, the EBU subsequently changed their stance somewhat to protect themselves legally, as I understand it. So I don't think they are technically suspended any more because they haven't done anything yet. They're still going to be expelled come first bell time on 14th July.

You've had enough direction if you only read the earlier threads.
Fight on this card and your licence is revoked.
Licence revoked with no Manager and Promotor ?
Where does that leave you if you are only a BRITISH TITLE CONTENDER ?
Forget about the "World" title aspirations.
Yes there may be a legal challenge - but how long do you think that will take and despite your protestations you cannot guarentee success.
What if you're 31 and in line for a British Title eliminator and faced with this dilemma ?
Would that change your answer that you would defintitely take an undercard fight ?
You seem to be assuming that I am fighting the Board's corner. Far from it, but whether it's legally right, morally right, none of the above, or all of the above, put yourself in the shoes of the fighters.

Thanks for clearing that up Dondada. I actually think that the whole case was dependant on this. As far as I can see then FW will have nothing to answer for and would quite rightly win a court case if his licences were pulled imo. The best the board can do is make some Reg changes and ensure that it won't happen again. Looks like the board will have to touch their toes while FW slowly gives them what they deserve for not making provisions for this nonsense to happen in the first place.

The Insider wrote:

danconnollyeire wrote:

The Insider wrote:
Reg 4.12?

If Luxembourg Fed are no longer recognised by the BBBOC and the EBU.

They are recgonised by the EBU:

http://www.boxebu.com/

FEDERATION LUXEMBOURGEOISE DE BOXE


Tel. +35-2-26522703
c/o Mr Toni TIBERI, General Secretary

Fax. +35-2-26513698
1, rue des celtes L-4526 Niederkorn (Luxembourg)

e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Pierre BACK, President

Keep up at the back mate ;) http://news.boxrec.com/news/2012/exclus ... federation

Boxrec 'understands' and 'it is though'... they are still registered on their website therefore they are 'still registered'

The Insider wrote:Thanks for clearing that up Dondada. I actually think that the whole case was dependant on this. As far as I can see then FW will have nothing to answer for and would quite rightly win a court case if his licences were pulled imo. The best the board can do is make some Reg changes and ensure that it won't happen again. Looks like the board will have to touch their toes while FW slowly gives them what they deserve for not making provisions for this nonsense to happen in the first place.

That's all I'm trying to say. The board can't make threats becausr they had no provisons. They should have had rules up preventing this but they didn't. It's a harsh lesson but one that may ensure this never happening again. That's all they can do IMO

twenty six wrote:You've had enough direction if you only read the earlier threads.
Fight on this card and your licence is revoked.
Licence revoked with no Manager and Promotor ?
Where does that leave you if you are only a BRITISH TITLE CONTENDER ?
Forget about the "World" title aspirations.
Yes there may be a legal challenge - but how long do you think that will take and despite your protestations you cannot guarentee success.
What if you're 31 and in line for a British Title eliminator and faced with this dilemma ?
Would that change your answer that you would defintitely take an undercard fight ?
You seem to be assuming that I am fighting the Board's corner. Far from it, but whether it's legally right, morally right, none of the above, or all of the above, put yourself in the shoes of the fighters.

Im fairly sure they changed their stance to "fight on this card and a case will be heard". Although that has been sufficient to see off the likes of Frankie Gavin, whose various twitter updates said he was fighting on the card, quickly changed to fighting sometime in July, then back on the card and quickly off the card due to the threat to his future.

As for the undercard, there are no details on the allegedly website. The Team Sauerland website has no mention of a card that it is involved in the promotion of. Similarly, there is barely a mention of the fight, let alone the undercard on the Hayemaker website. The official ticket outlet, Eventim, claims "Also on the card will be the WBA Heavyweight Champion of the World Alexander Povetkin defending his title against former world champion Hasim Rahman, plus a further fight to be added.", but it is public knowledge that Povetkin-Rahman is not happening.

This leaves the website of FWP, who I understood had no role in this fight, with its main man Mr warren citing his only involvement as through the TV Broadcaster, allegedly. Regardless, the website of this particular non-promoting promoter advertises the undercard thusly:

"Alexander Povetkin vs Hasim Rahman
Matthew Hall
Liam Walsh
Frankie Gavin
* Bill is subject to change"

I wouldn't expect anything other than the main fight.

Datsue wrote:

JDC wrote:I understand the possibilities, and believe that major changes are afoot. If anything, the organisations will be forced to get their houses in order to avoid this impending doom.

Impending doom? It's only the BBBC's doom, the WBA/WBO/Whoever are sanctioning it, as you've already pointed out.

It's not 1934, mate. Look at how many top Brits still meet for the British title. Because of the plethora of bullshit world/international/intercontinental/whatever titles available, promoters now don't need to court the Board, & rather see it as an obstruction to business. That's what this is about, really.

That was said tongue in cheek. The major boards like British, German and European seem to be working towards a mutual respect, creating an opportunity for them to solidify their positions. They will have to become more transparent and accountable, otherwise they will lose their respect and in the end... their relevance too. It's an opportunity, imo. Increased competition usually results in increased efficiency, boxing is not beneath scrutiny any more. Their archaic nature is being forced to evolve. The notion that we should back the BBBofC to the hilt, and denounce anything else, is restrictive to process.

JDC wrote:

Datsue wrote:

JDC wrote:I understand the possibilities, and believe that major changes are afoot. If anything, the organisations will be forced to get their houses in order to avoid this impending doom.

Impending doom? It's only the BBBC's doom, the WBA/WBO/Whoever are sanctioning it, as you've already pointed out.

It's not 1934, mate. Look at how many top Brits still meet for the British title. Because of the plethora of bullshit world/international/intercontinental/whatever titles available, promoters now don't need to court the Board, & rather see it as an obstruction to business. That's what this is about, really.

That was said tongue in cheek. The major boards like British, German and European seem to be working towards a mutual respect, creating an opportunity for them to solidify their positions. They will have to become more transparent and accountable, otherwise they will lose their respect and in the end... their relevance too. It's an opportunity, imo. Increased competition usually results in increased efficiency, boxing is not beneath scrutiny any more. Their archaic nature is being forced to evolve. The notion that we should back the BBBofC to the hilt, and denounce anything else, is restrictive to process.

Agreed. It may bjust teach them to take a look at themselves.

The board suspended Chisora's license so he would go and get help. The man has been a disgrace to the sport and that needed to be addressed. If they had given him a 12 month ban he could have come back as mental as ever, all set to disgrace the sport again. The idea was for him to get help and be welcomed back when things were sorted

The show may be legally right, but it is morally bankrupt. Quick cash and a fight for drunken yobbo's who have no interest in the integrity of the sport to enjoy.

thepocketrocket wrote:The board suspended Chisora's license so he would go and get help. The man has been a disgrace to the sport and that needed to be addressed. If they had given him a 12 month ban he could have come back as mental as ever, all set to disgrace the sport again. The idea was for him to get help and be welcomed back when things were sorted

The show may be legally right, but it is morally bankrupt. Quick cash and a fight for drunken yobbo's who have no interest in the integrity of the sport to enjoy.

I agree with you 100%, it is morally wrong, but BBBofC were idiots. They could've banned him indefinetly, will a 9 month review or something. They told him to feel free to apply elsewhere and he did, now they're upset? I have no sympathy, Homer Simpson all over DOH

danconnollyeire wrote:

thepocketrocket wrote:The board suspended Chisora's license so he would go and get help. The man has been a disgrace to the sport and that needed to be addressed. If they had given him a 12 month ban he could have come back as mental as ever, all set to disgrace the sport again. The idea was for him to get help and be welcomed back when things were sorted

The show may be legally right, but it is morally bankrupt. Quick cash and a fight for drunken yobbo's who have no interest in the integrity of the sport to enjoy.

I agree with you 100%, it is morally wrong, but BBBofC were idiots. They could've banned him indefinetly, will a 9 month review or something. They told him to feel free to apply elsewhere and he did, now they're upset? I have no sympathy, Homer Simpson all over DOH

There are people who are getting paid a lot more than me to sort out the legal ramifications, though your idea seems good.

I just get upset that people aren't going for the fight, to see who may well get a world title fight. They WANT to see something that will permanently tarnish the sports image as that will be 'funny'.

I love the sport, this feels dirty

danconnollyeire wrote:

thepocketrocket wrote:The board suspended Chisora's license so he would go and get help. The man has been a disgrace to the sport and that needed to be addressed. If they had given him a 12 month ban he could have come back as mental as ever, all set to disgrace the sport again. The idea was for him to get help and be welcomed back when things were sorted

The show may be legally right, but it is morally bankrupt. Quick cash and a fight for drunken yobbo's who have no interest in the integrity of the sport to enjoy.

I agree with you 100%, it is morally wrong, but BBBofC were idiots. They could've banned him indefinetly, will a 9 month review or something. They told him to feel free to apply elsewhere and he did, now they're upset? I have no sympathy, Homer Simpson all over DOH

If Chisora had been given a specific ban, say 12 months, what would have stopped him, legally speaking, from applying for a licence under another body (say the LBF) and for them to provide him with a licence and the fight to go ahead as planned?

Also, one question that seems to have neither been answered or asked, is whether David Haye actually applied for a BBBC licence. It's well documented that he rescinded his licence on retirement last year, but I don't see that there was anything to stop him applying for a licence and if he hasn't than it can't be said that the BBBC have been unfair on him as they have never been given the opportunity to grant or refuse him a licence.

dondada wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:

Ressosss wrote:On another note, why isn't the fight, and the card, listed on the BoxRec schedule? Does that mean that BoxRec are taking a dim view on the fight a la Sky?

I struggle with this. This site's whole reason-to-be is its excellent statistical information, for which it is justifiably regarded as a highly trusted source, but opinion of the fight and those involved seems to be clouding the issue. At the end of the day this is just another licenced fight, just like any that takes place outside BBB of C jurisdiction. Just another statistic. A great deal of faith is put in the statistical information Boxrec provides, so for the site to ignore a perfectly legitimate fight because it doesn't like it, for whatever reason, just doesn't sit right. It reflects badly on every statistic on Boxrec if the fight is ignored, casts a doubt over the veracity of the figures. We're all very familiar with the background to this fight, but how many licenced fights taking place around the world every year might have political backgrounds we know nothing about? Does Boxrec take a moral stance against them too? Or is it treating this fight differently becaue of the people involved and the fact it is taking place in Britain? These are very real questions that affect the standing of the site as a
record-keeping entity.

As a starter for clarification - this won't affect BoxRec's record keeping (in terms of fighters' records) one little bit. The results will be listed on the fighters' records, as far as I know. It might go down as unsanctioned, mind.
###############
That's ok then, can keep trusting the record keeping, no need for that to be brought into question by an editorial stance
################
Again, it's only my take and not 'BoxRec' policy but perhaps they don't share the view that the fight is legit. The whole point of the LBF taking over was that they are recognised by the EBU. Although
the latter has not technically kicked out the former yet due to a governance point, they have already voted to do so. Those involved in the promotion now no longer mention the EBU link as it's gone.
Just because the WBA and WBO are offering their shitty straps to the match doesn't make it
legitimate either. So, there's still a question over the legitimacy of the fight and those in charge of
scheduling have chosen one side rather than the other.

As Wake Up Call has been most helpful in outlining on various threads, just because this load of
venal bollocks is legal does not necessarily make it legitimate.[/quote
################
The fight is totally legal and as legitimate as any other licenced fight. It's crime is not breaking the
law, but going against the spirit of the law, which while not particularly helpful or tasteful is not actually a crime. I'm not comfortable with the situation at all but there can be no questioning the legality or legitimacy of the fight IMO.
################

thepocketrocket wrote:The board suspended Chisora's license so he would go and get help. The man has been a disgrace to the sport and that needed to be addressed. If they had given him a 12 month ban he could have come back as mental as ever, all set to disgrace the sport again. The idea was for him to get help and be welcomed back when things were sorted

The show may be legally right, but it is morally bankrupt. Quick cash and a fight for drunken yobbo's who have no interest in the integrity of the sport to enjoy.

I agree with what they did, in principle. However, the time scale for Chisora's hearing was restrictive to a fighter in his prime. He was asked to wait a few months, to see if he could fight again any time soon. With Haye in semi-retirement, he couldn't take the chance. If he was ordered to an independent doctor/psychiatrist, for an assessment, he would have a better idea of where he stood with them. He should have been called in immediately for a hearing, or at least within a couple of weeks.

I do think that Haye and Chisora should have accepted their invitation to be interviewed by the German board. It was very disrespectful that they didn't go, and the German board was right to impose their own sanctions on the pair fighting on German cards.

earsjohn wrote:

danconnollyeire wrote:

thepocketrocket wrote:The board suspended Chisora's license so he would go and get help. The man has been a disgrace to the sport and that needed to be addressed. If they had given him a 12 month ban he could have come back as mental as ever, all set to disgrace the sport again. The idea was for him to get help and be welcomed back when things were sorted

The show may be legally right, but it is morally bankrupt. Quick cash and a fight for drunken yobbo's who have no interest in the integrity of the sport to enjoy.

I agree with you 100%, it is morally wrong, but BBBofC were idiots. They could've banned him indefinetly, will a 9 month review or something. They told him to feel free to apply elsewhere and he did, now they're upset? I have no sympathy, Homer Simpson all over DOH

If Chisora had been given a specific ban, say 12 months, what would have stopped him, legally speaking, from applying for a licence under another body (say the LBF) and for them to provide him with a licence and the fight to go ahead as planned?

Also, one question that seems to have neither been answered or asked, is whether David Haye actually applied for a BBBC licence. It's well documented that he rescinded his licence on retirement last year, but I don't see that there was anything to stop him applying for a licence and if he hasn't than it can't be said that the BBBC have been unfair on him as they have never been given the opportunity to grant or refuse him a licence.

I don't think he'd even have bothered. He wants one more fight, Wlad or Vitali. He will always fight em abroad, BBBofC is irrelevent to him...