BoxRec

Ah, OK. Well, you're right, of course.

However, the BBBoC has discretion over who gets a licence and who doesn't and there is that catch all caveat used so often of 'disrepute'. Not that I'm making reference to any particular case or individual, of course.

MachoMan09 wrote:

Pugilist-specialist wrote:What if a promoter went bankrupt owing a fighter money?

Surely the BBBofC would not let the promoter to continue promoting under a different company name?

If you've got a gripe over that, you need to take it up with your local MP or the DTI. The business laws of this country aren't created and upheld by the British Boxing Board of Control, you know.

Indeed they're not, but the licensing conditions are the preserve of the BBBC. If, as an example, the shareholders in a promotional company that folds leaving boxers and other organsations unpaid become significant shareholders in a new company carrying out the same activity, the BBBC have a responsibility to grant the second oragnisation a promoters licence. Surely one of the stipulations for a licence could be that they have not, either as an individual or as part of a promotional group, welched on financial commitments in relation to boxing activities?

Nothing to do with business laws or MPs. BBBC withheld a managers licence from a high profile victim of a disgraced former sunday newspapers sting operation. There was no legal precedent or requirement in that case to do so, it appeared to act out of brand protection rather than any specific threat or impact to boxers.

dondada wrote:
However, the BBBoC have discretion over who gets a licence and who doesn't and there is that catch all caveat used so often of 'disrepute'.

they could use the disrepute argument- but would that open them to a libel case with the more litigious people they have to deal with?

Counter-puncher wrote:

dondada wrote:
However, the BBBoC have discretion over who gets a licence and who doesn't and there is that catch all caveat used so often of 'disrepute'.

they could use the disrepute argument- but would that open them to a libel case with the more litigious people they have to deal with?

Restraint of trade perhaps, but surely not libel?

earsjohn wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:

Pugilist-specialist wrote:What if a promoter went bankrupt owing a fighter money?

Surely the BBBofC would not let the promoter to continue promoting under a different company name?

If you've got a gripe over that, you need to take it up with your local MP or the DTI. The business laws of this country aren't created and upheld by the British Boxing Board of Control, you know.

Indeed they're not, but the licensing conditions are the preserve of the BBBC. If, as an example, the shareholders in a promotional company that folds leaving boxers and other organsations unpaid become significant shareholders in a new company carrying out the same activity, the BBBC have a responsibility to grant the second oragnisation a promoters licence. Surely one of the stipulations for a licence could be that they have not, either as an individual or as part of a promotional group, welched on financial commitments in relation to boxing activities?

Nothing to do with business laws or MPs. BBBC withheld a managers licence from a high profile victim of a disgraced former sunday newspapers sting operation. There was no legal precedent or requirement in that case to do so, it appeared to act out of brand protection rather than any specific threat or impact to boxers.

which means they have discretion. discretion being the better part of valour, perhaps there are certain individuals who, for whatever reasons, the Board would prefer not to antagonise.

earsjohn wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:

dondada wrote:
However, the BBBoC have discretion over who gets a licence and who doesn't and there is that catch all caveat used so often of 'disrepute'.

they could use the disrepute argument- but would that open them to a libel case with the more litigious people they have to deal with?

Restraint of trade perhaps, but surely not libel?

i accuse X of bringing something into disrepute. X gets very angry that i have branded him disreputable.

some might say it's fair comment but that's never stopped X going with the nuclear option in the past. do you think X's license could get suspended or taken away without some kind of legal shitstorm? given, you know, his track record, and that?

Counter-puncher wrote:

earsjohn wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote: they could use the disrepute argument- but would that open them to a libel case with the more litigious people they have to deal with?

Restraint of trade perhaps, but surely not libel?

i accuse X of bringing something into disrepute. X gets very angry that i have branded him disreputable.

some might say it's fair comment but that's never stopped X going with the nuclear option in the past. do you think X's license could get suspended or taken away without some kind of legal shitstorm? given, you know, his track record, and that?

I have no idea to whom you're referring, of course, but it would surely be the Board's role to face down something like this.

There's a rather interesting thread on Eastside at present. Just saying

Surely some of the boxers who not been paid will complain to the board if. Then the board will have to act.

This very issue.

Counter-puncher wrote:

earsjohn wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote: they could use the disrepute argument- but would that open them to a libel case with the more litigious people they have to deal with?

Restraint of trade perhaps, but surely not libel?

i accuse X of bringing something into disrepute. X gets very angry that i have branded him disreputable.

some might say it's fair comment but that's never stopped X going with the nuclear option in the past. do you think X's license could get suspended or taken away without some kind of legal shitstorm? given, you know, his track record, and that?

But across so many other sports, competitors and management/coaching staff are often charged with bringing the sport or their club into disrepute. The cases are heard and those involved exonerated or fined/suspended accordingly. I have never heard of anyone bringing an action on the basis of being accused of bringing the sport into disrepute. And, if you consider football in particular, there are more finances related to image than those concerned with a boxing promoter.

This would surely be even more difficult to argue if there was some kind of clause in the promoters license conditions regarding bringing the sport into disrepute? It would be very easy to argue that certain actions by certain promoters have brought the sport into disrepute. The general views held among the boxing public (both proper and non-proper fans) towards such promoters is evidence of such.

MachoMan09 wrote:

leforge wrote:Surely some of the boxers who not been paid will complain to the board if. Then the board will have to act.

Okay. Let's say you are on the Board and have decided to act on this matter. What would you do?

Suspend the promtors until they pays all the fighters they owe. Can't keep putting on shows and not paying.

leforge wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:

leforge wrote:Surely some of the boxers who not been paid will complain to the board if. Then the board will have to act.

Okay. Let's say you are on the Board and have decided to act on this matter. What would you do?

Suspend the promtors until they pays all the fighters they owe. Can't keep putting on shows and not paying.

Playing devils advocate here.....

What if the penniless promoter claims that the only way he can generate funds to pay the purses owed is by putting on a show to generate revenue?

The same situation is likely to happen, but better a guaranteed payment of existing debts with a potential to create new debts than guaranteed non-payment of existing debts. It's short-sighted, but a wholly reasonable approach, particularly in respect of the fighters currently out of pocket.

earsjohn wrote:

leforge wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote: Okay. Let's say you are on the Board and have decided to act on this matter. What would you do?

Suspend the promtors until they pays all the fighters they owe. Can't keep putting on shows and not paying.

Playing devils advocate here.....

What if the penniless promoter claims that the only way he can generate funds to pay the purses owed is by putting on a show to generate revenue?

The same situation is likely to happen, but better a guaranteed payment of existing debts with a potential to create new debts than guaranteed non-payment of existing debts. It's short-sighted, but a wholly reasonable approach, particularly in respect of the fighters currently out of pocket.

That the situation which is happening now it cant go on though as they building up more and more creditors. If boxers are not being paid you can bet PAYE & VAT has not been paid. Some fighters will walk away.

Looking at it simply, a Promotor makes a purse bid to stage a fight.
60% to champ 40% to challenger.
What possible excuse can you offer up for a Promotor not fulfilling that obligation ?
"Well the night bombed" - well guess what that's the Promotor's problem.
If you can't pay up, don't make an unachievable purse bid to start with.
You can't hire a car for £500 to go to a business meeting and then because the meeting bombs ask for the car hire bill to be reduced !
It is very tough out there for everyone but a deal is a deal.

twenty six wrote:Looking at it simply, a Promotor makes a purse bid to stage a fight.
60% to champ 40% to challenger.
What possible excuse can you offer up for a Promotor not fulfilling that obligation ?
"Well the night bombed" - well guess what that's the Promotor's problem.
If you can't pay up, don't make an unachievable purse bid to start with.
You can't hire a car for £500 to go to a business meeting and then because the meeting bombs ask for the car hire bill to be reduced !
It is very tough out there for everyone but a deal is a deal.

Indeed do they not realise this when making bids then hiring large venues they could be out of pocket. Surely they should do projections to see if the bid is realistic.

Interesting thread. To go off at a tangent, how long do people think this will last, then ?

I keep doing the math in my head - multiplying the subscription rate by a guessed number of subscribers, times so many months.... if the people behind the channel don't have seriously deep pockets AND a commitment to see through big early losses, this venture may not be around to celebrate its first birthday. This is pure speculation on my part. I would imagine the backers would have gone into this with their eyes open and an acceptance of rock all profit in the first year, if they didn't get a lot of subscribers when they launched, it is going to be painfully hard to drive up the customer base now. For those customers who have signed up, the backers can relax, because - in fairness - by the time the subscription is up for renewal fans will have probably been spoiled rotten with quantity (and hopefully, quality). But the challenge of drawing new subscribers will be a tough one. It was absolutely crazy, in this online world we live in, not to have had the option of signing up customers who could watch the shows live, online. You should open up your potential customer base to everyone with a PC, not just those who have Sky or Virgin. There are millions of people in that category in this country alone. Even Ricky Hatton's website has its own video player facility - not that I'm knocking Hatton's promotional set up, but my point is, if he can do it, why can't the new home of boxing ?

So you think that the following scenario would be ok do you ?
Purse bids Macho Man £100k Twenty Six £95k.
You get to stage the bout.
You Promote the show poorly which means a loss - so you pass that loss on to the Fighters.
Not only do you deprive the Fighters of their agreed purse, you deprive a rival Promotor putting on the show.
OK ? Yes or No.

MachoMan09 wrote: Is suspending him likely to result in the fighters getting paid? Probably not.

Is it likely to prevent this hypothetical licence holder failing to pay fighters with regards to any future work? Probably.

In a way, Terry Marsh had the right idea when it came to disputes with promoters.

The bigger Promoters should always pay there boxers,sky pay the tv promoters 90k to 130 k a show,surely thats a great start???????? compared to little small hall promoters,Think its down to one word Greedy I do believe its about time sky looked at working with the small hall promoters they will do some great shows .And say good-bye to the bigger ones get new fresh faces in the sport.The reason i am told BBBC do nothing about promoters not paying there boxers ??????They owed thousands in tv money

It's where phantom bids come in.

Have a deal with the fighter to bid 160k with an agreement that they will only actually receive 60k but get home advantage.

It's why the purse bid situ is bollcks. And when it cannot be controlled they withdraw / vacate.

Some big numbers flying around in here. 160k here, 95k there.

Might not sound massive but there's a lot of British champions who box for purses of less than 20k. Recently two Brits challenging for world titles were paid less than 70k (well, one of them is with said promoter and is still waiting for his cheque).

Wake up call wrote:Some big numbers flying around in here. 160k here, 95k there.

Might not sound massive but there's a lot of British champions who box for purses of less than 20k. Recently two Brits challenging for world titles were paid less than 70k (well, one of them is with said promoter and is still waiting for his cheque).

I bet that particular ship jump isn't looked upon too fondly.

Wake up call wrote:Some big numbers flying around in here. 160k here, 95k there.

Might not sound massive but there's a lot of British champions who box for purses of less than 20k. Recently two Brits challenging for world titles were paid less than 70k (well, one of them is with said promoter and is still waiting for his cheque).

Well he needs to grow some balls and make the complante to the board , not saying he'll get any were but make the complante.