BoxRec

The Insider wrote:

spudder56 wrote:


How do you think this will all end up in the end ?

I think the Board will realize they are flogging a dead horse and will eventually yield to whatever terms the LuxBox organistion set. The Board will also probably end up paying out a few quid in costs etc. Having said that the Board must think it has a good case or they wouldn't have taken things this far. Who knows?

Lets hope it is sorted out soon before any more money is wasted

No candidates then ...

Boxing Prospect wrote:If Luxembourg wins would white collar fights start to be accepted on boxrec? Or is that jumping too far ahead?

At the moment, boxers are either licensed with the BBBofC or they are not.

If they are not, then this is where the "unlicesnsed" bit comes from.

If another body arrives then this gives another option - either license with the BBofC, Licence with Luxemburg, or not.

If licensed with BBofC or Luxemburg, then they will be what we call "pro's".

If not, they will be unlicensed or what you call "white collar".

bripez wrote:

Boxing Prospect wrote:If Luxembourg wins would white collar fights start to be accepted on boxrec? Or is that jumping too far ahead?

At the moment, boxers are either licensed with the BBBofC or they are not.

If they are not, then this is where the "unlicesnsed" bit comes from.

If another body arrives then this gives another option - either license with the BBofC, Licence with Luxemburg, or not.

If licensed with BBofC or Luxemburg, then they will be what we call "pro's".

If not, they will be unlicensed or what you call "white collar".

More the idea that if Luxembourg can off them, why can't, well, any of the actual white collar organisations (I did list one earlier).

There was a card in Uruguay this past Saturday that had a world title fight on it. Anyone got any idea on why that was unsanctioned?

slapbangwhallop wrote:

expe wrote:Hopefully this ends soon and Luxembourg are banned from sanctioning fights in the UK.

If the BBBoC board was democratically elected by by its licence holders then I would agree with you, but its isnt, so I dont!

x100000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Boxing Prospect wrote:

bripez wrote:

Boxing Prospect wrote:If Luxembourg wins would white collar fights start to be accepted on boxrec? Or is that jumping too far ahead?

At the moment, boxers are either licensed with the BBBofC or they are not.

If they are not, then this is where the "unlicesnsed" bit comes from.

If another body arrives then this gives another option - either license with the BBofC, Licence with Luxemburg, or not.

If licensed with BBofC or Luxemburg, then they will be what we call "pro's".

If not, they will be unlicensed or what you call "white collar".

More the idea that if Luxembourg can off them, why can't, well, any of the actual white collar organisations (I did list one earlier).

There was a card in Uruguay this past Saturday that had a world title fight on it. Anyone got any idea on why that was unsanctioned?

Sorry mate, now I get you.

I don't know - does anybody know the criteria for setting up such a sanctioning body ?

danconnollyeire wrote:

slapbangwhallop wrote:

expe wrote:Hopefully this ends soon and Luxembourg are banned from sanctioning fights in the UK.

If the BBBoC board was democratically elected by by its licence holders then I would agree with you, but its isnt, so I dont!

x100000000000000000000000000000000000000000

I would agree that Licence holders should elect Board Stewards from each area as long as they are not directly or indirectly financially involved in any way

bripez wrote:

Boxing Prospect wrote:

bripez wrote:does anybody know the criteria for setting up such a sanctioning body ?

Get some tin foil and some glitter to make a tinpot belt. Charge folk 250 quid a time to fight for it. Piece of piss!

spudder56 wrote:

danconnollyeire wrote:

slapbangwhallop wrote: If the BBBoC board was democratically elected by by its licence holders then I would agree with you, but its isnt, so I dont!

x100000000000000000000000000000000000000000

I would agree that Licence holders should elect Board Stewards from each area as long as they are not directly or indirectly financially involved in any way

but thats bollocks because pretty much everyone that holds a licence is either "directly or indirectly financially involved" in boxing.

but thats bollocks because pretty much everyone that holds a licence is either "directly or indirectly financially involved" in boxing.


What I meant was that whoever Licence holders elect to represent their Area as a Rep Steward must not be financially involved in anyway There are lots of good people on Area Councils all over the country who give their time freely for the good of the sport

I agree with this the midlands area are a great bunch and i would elect them over any of the licence holders in my area but i have to admit there might be a couple who i would vote off if i was in other areas of the country.

jonp wrote:I agree with this the midlands area are a great bunch and i would elect them over any of the licence holders in my area but i have to admit there might be a couple who i would vote off if i was in other areas of the country.

That's the thing Peggy, keep them in if they are doing a good job, replace them if they ain't. Bingo! The Licence holders can be trusted!

Would also stop the whole trampling of licence holders opinions that sometimes happens.Like i say i dont think anyone could do a better job than our area.They are strict but fair and have common sense over the letter of the law sometimes.

jonp wrote:Would also stop the whole trampling of licence holders opinions that sometimes happens.Like i say i dont think anyone could do a better job than our area.They are strict but fair and have common sense over the letter of the law sometimes.

Well said John area councils try to give a strict but fair decision at all times ok licence holders sometimes don't like the decisions made but it always done with the highest of integrity also on many occasions the stewards overrule decisions or suggestions put forward by area councils for whatever reason they see fit but that's a matter for them area council members do it for the love of the game also they don't get any expenses whatsoever for attending council meetings which in the case of the midlands means one Sunday every month with the only reward being free light refreshments during the meeting also there are sometimes additional meetings if the workload is too much

The BBB of C are a private ,limited company just like any other . They have office bearers and a constitution , produce audited accounts, and have a Chief Executive ( in this case called a General Secretary) who deals with the day to day running of the company. They are required to hold an AGM , and under ceetain circumstances an EGM.
Where this company is different from most others is that the shareholders ( ie the licence holders) CANNOT vote off , or elect, the office bearers. In other companies, if a significant majority of the shareholders want someone removed from office they can put forward a motion at either an AGM or call for a EGM. For some strange reason the Board don't have these rules - and I wonder why ?????

Once again , I suggest LEADERSHIP , or lack of , is the problem. A wise, old head , with complete and utter integrity , and the strength of character to stand up to the main players is a necessity.

Of course the ONLY way of doing this , and getting the RIGHT person into the job, is by ALL licence holders simply refusing to renew their licences until the constitution is changed. But there is no one willing to raise their head above the parapet in case the motion fails and they are then left out on their own.
I think Simon Block would be a good candidate.

Seems were dealing with a few seperate issues here. The court case is being bought about because the LBF believe the Board are in breach of the EU restraint of trade law. Regarding area councils etc, For what it's worth, as with most things in life there are good and bad people who sit in senior positions within the Board and and at Area level throught the country. I'm not in any way anti Board, I am however anti bullshit and there has been plenty of it going on lately. I have lost a lot of faith in the Board over the last couple of years for one reason and another and feel let down by a company that we as licence holders should be protected by and the whole LBF/Haye v Chisora episode left me somewhat dismayed by a Board who we pay licence fees to. They bluffed, intimidated and took some very duff advice during this period and it seems now they might be about to pay the price.

The Insider wrote:Seems were dealing with a few seperate issues here. The court case is being bought about because the LBF believe the Board are in breach of the EU restraint of trade law. Regarding area councils etc, For what it's worth, as with most things in life there are good and bad people who sit in senior positions within the Board and and at Area level throught the country. I'm not in any way anti Board, I am however anti bullshit and there has been plenty of it going on lately. I have lost a lot of faith in the Board over the last couple of years for one reason and another and feel let down by a company that we as licence holders should be protected by and the whole LBF/Haye v Chisora episode left me somewhat dismayed by a Board who we pay licence fees to. They bluffed, intimidated and took some very duff advice during this period and it seems now they might be about to pay the price.

If the Board pays the price, it is really the licence holders who pay the price. Ordinary decent individuals who's money is being used to fight unnecessary litigatory matters. Whether this is being fuelled by headstrong individuals within the Board is an unknown matter.

The Insider wrote:Seems were dealing with a few seperate issues here. The court case is being bought about because the LBF believe the Board are in breach of the EU restraint of trade law. Regarding area councils etc, For what it's worth, as with most things in life there are good and bad people who sit in senior positions within the Board and and at Area level throught the country. I'm not in any way anti Board, I am however anti bullshit and there has been plenty of it going on lately. I have lost a lot of faith in the Board over the last couple of years for one reason and another and feel let down by a company that we as licence holders should be protected by and the whole LBF/Haye v Chisora episode left me somewhat dismayed by a Board who we pay licence fees to. They bluffed, intimidated and took some very duff advice during this period and it seems now they might be about to pay the price.

All I'd say is that sport should be exempted from all EU laws and the politicians can keep their noses out.