BoxRec

expe wrote:

JamieM wrote:The part where it's rubbish and they are making profit, and if you don't believe it then that's worrying .

Making profit for who? They have no shareholders.

If you can't understand what a nonprofit is, or what a company limited by guarantee is then there's no point going any further because you'll just continue to talk shite about things you have no understanding of.

You have been a bit quiet lately Expe, I assumed that you had been spending even more time at the university of Google in order to improve your vast knowledge.

Again, your argument is based purely on semantics.

A non-profit organisation may not make a "profit" as such, however they can (and indeed, mostly do) make a "surplus" - which in reality are one and the same thing, unless of course you are a pedant in an attempt at petty point scoring.

expe wrote:

JamieM wrote:They are crooks to be fair, they hold the gun at the boxers head. They make constant profit off of them, make everything annual so they hammer them yearly. My ball my rules, I heard Robert smith on speaker and that's best way to describe it.

What part of non profit are you unable to understand?

It may be a non profit organisation but that doesnt mean mr smith and co dont get £60,000+ a year plus lunch out on the organisation hotels up and down the country at the cost of this non profir organisation bonuses at the cost of this non profit organisation whilst fighters who are tryin to make an honest living as a fighter who may struggle to sell a few tickets fights for as little as £400-£500 per fight and if they get cut that could be a fight anywere between 2-3months work that out and i think u will find these poor lads are fightin as a non profit organisation not the f**kin bbbofc

expe wrote:

JamieM wrote:The part where it's rubbish and they are making profit, and if you don't believe it then that's worrying .

Making profit for who? They have no shareholders.

If you can't understand what a nonprofit is, or what a company limited by guarantee is then there's no point going any further because you'll just continue to talk shite about things you have no understanding of.

Personal profit,if mr smith and co dont get fighters to pay as much as possible per year then they will have to dig into their own wages for their cheese and onion p asty from greggs for lunch

Anyone unhappy with the board have the option of signing with the MBC, OIBA or such like.

Then the board act as spoilt little children and cut off all avenues for boxers.

Do they? Surely they only prevent them from boxing on bbbofc shows? And if a boxer dislikes the bbbofc so much, why would they want to?

bripez wrote:

expe wrote:

JamieM wrote:The part where it's rubbish and they are making profit, and if you don't believe it then that's worrying .

Making profit for who? They have no shareholders.

If you can't understand what a nonprofit is, or what a company limited by guarantee is then there's no point going any further because you'll just continue to talk shite about things you have no understanding of.

You have been a bit quiet lately Expe, I assumed that you had been spending even more time at the university of Google in order to improve your vast knowledge.

Again, your argument is based purely on semantics.

A non-profit organisation may not make a "profit" as such, however they can (and indeed, mostly do) make a "surplus" - which in reality are one and the same thing, unless of course you are a pedant in an attempt at petty point scoring.

You're wasting your time trying to get a bite from me.

They aren't one and the same, profits can be handed out to shareholders in the form of dividends, a surplus can't, especially when there are no shareholders. The surplus can then be allowed to accumulate in the bank, as some of it should to allow them to continue running if there's a loss of cashflow, or reinvested back into the company.

If only business was run in this manner, all clean and tidy, definitely noting dodgy about boxing ha.