BoxRec

JDC wrote:

UpperCrust wrote:Article on skysports today confirming that the BBBC are considering this:

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 90,00.html

Fight was sanctioned by the WBA and promoted by Haymaker. The BBBC haven't been anywhere near the cash, so how can they withhold it?

Both boxers are licensed by the BBBofC, they have to officially recognise the WBA in order for the fight to go ahead. It's why Benn had to fight in the US until they recognised the WBO. I'm prepared to be corrected, but some sort of fee will have been paid to them for this contest?

orbtastic wrote:

JDC wrote:

UpperCrust wrote:Article on skysports today confirming that the BBBC are considering this:

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 90,00.html

Fight was sanctioned by the WBA and promoted by Haymaker. The BBBC haven't been anywhere near the cash, so how can they withhold it?

Both boxers are licensed by the BBBofC, they have to officially recognise the WBA in order for the fight to go ahead. It's why Benn had to fight in the US until they recognised the WBO. I'm prepared to be corrected, but some sort of fee will have been paid to them for this contest?

Ahh, so its a proportion of the sanctioning fee or licencing payment that they are talking about withholding?

I wouldn't think they could legally have any claim to the Sky and other TV revenue

JDC wrote:

orbtastic wrote:

JDC wrote: Fight was sanctioned by the WBA and promoted by Haymaker. The BBBC haven't been anywhere near the cash, so how can they withhold it?

Both boxers are licensed by the BBBofC, they have to officially recognise the WBA in order for the fight to go ahead. It's why Benn had to fight in the US until they recognised the WBO. I'm prepared to be corrected, but some sort of fee will have been paid to them for this contest?

Ahh, so its a proportion of the sanctioning fee or licencing payment that they are talking about withholding?

I wouldn't think they could legally have any claim to the Sky and other TV revenue

It's a weird situation because in ANY contest, they don't dole out money to anyone. They are in a position to withhold a fighter's purse (which could be made up from any number of revenue streams but essentially paid by the promoter). It's been done before, I can't think of an example off the top of my head thta applies directly in this instance but usually a purse is withheld if it's deemed the guy hasn't tried enough or there has been some controversy. Vivian Harris against Ortiz, Toney against Corture, Judah against KT, Mamadou Thiam against Andy Lee - In all cases the State Athletic commission (or Irish board in Thiam's case) did the withholding (pending investigation), in the UK we don't have that - The Board acts as one huge athletic commission for the UK.

Seems like madness. I think anyone who contested this would win. If it was described as a heavy fine, rather than a purse withholding (if thats a word in this context), then they could possibly get away with it.

I don't understand how they can decide Haye is innocent of the betting scenario within 24 hours of the fight, but Audley has to wait three weeks for a decision on whether or not he gets paid. He'll get his money, but I'm not sure how they can move so quickly on one count, and not the other.

If it's for investigation into betting, then they should do the same to Haye.