BoxRec

I actually see this as quite simple.

The fight is legal, so if all parties involved really want it to happen, a way will be found. The stance taken by the BBBC, along with the EBU and WBC, is that while the fight is legally allowed, it goes against their own rules (or their interpretation of their own rules) and thus they are unwilling to sanction it.

The problems will come after the fight when the three main parties involved (Warren, Haye and Chisora) look to continue their careers within the confines of the existing governing bodies. Looking at Warren - for someone who is so insistent that he doesn't need the support of the BBBC to promote this fight, he seems to be spending an awful amount of effort trying to ensure that he can continue to operate under their auspices in future. With Haye and Chisora, it is probably less of an issue as win or lose they will be able to continue their careers, to a fairly lucrative degree, away from the UK. Although if, say, a Vitali v Haye fight is planned, the lack of support from the BBBC will surely hinder Haye at the negotiating table, if not in the ring.

I can see the fight happening under an obscure licensing body (hell, they could chuck a cage over the ring and call it MMA!) but with a minimal, if non-existent undercard - Would it be possible for the BBBC to licence legitimate undercard fights without supporting the main event - something akin to mixed pro and amateur cards?

King Geedorah wrote:The LBF voted 8-4 in favour of the fight at a special meeting last night.

I bet they did. Too good for them to reject.

If the EBU suspends the LBF though.... whether they want the fight or not will not matter surely.

The fight will be licenced, it seems. Luxembourg had a meeting about it yesterday and voted 8-4 to go ahead with the show according to an FWP press release this morning

Glyn Leach wrote:The fight will be licenced, it seems. Luxembourg had a meeting about it yesterday and voted 8-4 to go ahead with the show according to an FWP press release this morning

When is a licence not a licence?

I don't think there is a question that the fight will have a licence, but whether it will have one that is credible and recognised. If LBF are booted from EBU, then they are simply another EBF/EBA type organisation. One question - if that was the case (ie the fight is licensed but not by an EBU/BBBC affiliated body) would you recognise the result in your mags rankings?

earsjohn wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:The fight will be licenced, it seems. Luxembourg had a meeting about it yesterday and voted 8-4 to go ahead with the show according to an FWP press release this morning

When is a licence not a licence?

I don't think there is a question that the fight will have a licence, but whether it will have one that is credible and recognised. If LBF are booted from EBU, then they are simply another EBF/EBA type organisation. One question - if that was the case (ie the fight is licensed but not by an EBU/BBBC affiliated body) would you recognise the result in your mags rankings?

The fight is for the WBO and WBA Intercontinental titles. Both the WBO and WBA are reputable boxing bodies and thus I think the result will be aknowledged.

jameswilson wrote:

earsjohn wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:The fight will be licenced, it seems. Luxembourg had a meeting about it yesterday and voted 8-4 to go ahead with the show according to an FWP press release this morning

When is a licence not a licence?

I don't think there is a question that the fight will have a licence, but whether it will have one that is credible and recognised. If LBF are booted from EBU, then they are simply another EBF/EBA type organisation. One question - if that was the case (ie the fight is licensed but not by an EBU/BBBC affiliated body) would you recognise the result in your mags rankings?

The fight is for the WBO and WBA Intercontinental titles. Neither of the WBO and WBA are reputable boxing bodies and thus I think the result will be aknowledged.

Fixed

earsjohn wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:The fight will be licenced, it seems. Luxembourg had a meeting about it yesterday and voted 8-4 to go ahead with the show according to an FWP press release this morning

When is a licence not a licence?

I don't think there is a question that the fight will have a licence, but whether it will have one that is credible and recognised. If LBF are booted from EBU, then they are simply another EBF/EBA type organisation. One question - if that was the case (ie the fight is licensed but not by an EBU/BBBC affiliated body) would you recognise the result in your mags rankings?

I'm no more concerned about the supposed veracity of the licence than I would be for any number of fights around the world where we know absolutely nothing about the licensing bodies and what might be going on behind the scenes. For me the EBU threat is a red herring. The EBU is merely an extension of the BBB of C, with the chairman of the BBB of C as vice president and with more British votes on it than any other country - of course it will vote against the fight in any way possible, to protect the BBB of C - i.e. itself - and its earnings potential. That's fine, but it's only business, don't mistake it for anything more righteous. The BBB of C and the EBU are businesses just as much as FWP, they aren't paragons of virtue sworn to rid the boxing world of dodginess. IMO the 'gamekeepers' are no better than the 'poachers', this is a business squabble, not a fight between good and evil

earsjohn wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:The fight will be licenced, it seems. Luxembourg had a meeting about it yesterday and voted 8-4 to go ahead with the show according to an FWP press release this morning

When is a licence not a licence?

I don't think there is a question that the fight will have a licence, but whether it will have one that is credible and recognised. If LBF are booted from EBU, then they are simply another EBF/EBA type organisation. One question - if that was the case (ie the fight is licensed but not by an EBU/BBBC affiliated body) would you recognise the result in your mags rankings?

Question is could the LBF become credible without the EBU if they keep getting big fights put their way?

I can see this fight ending up on a barge - let's go proper old school.

Glyn Leach wrote:

earsjohn wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:The fight will be licenced, it seems. Luxembourg had a meeting about it yesterday and voted 8-4 to go ahead with the show according to an FWP press release this morning

When is a licence not a licence?

I don't think there is a question that the fight will have a licence, but whether it will have one that is credible and recognised. If LBF are booted from EBU, then they are simply another EBF/EBA type organisation. One question - if that was the case (ie the fight is licensed but not by an EBU/BBBC affiliated body) would you recognise the result in your mags rankings?

I'm no more concerned about the supposed veracity of the licence than I would be for any number of fights around the world where we know absolutely nothing about the licensing bodies and what might be going on behind the scenes. For me the EBU threat is a red herring. The EBU is merely an extension of the BBB of C, with the chairman of the BBB of C as vice president and with more British votes on it than any other country - of course it will vote against the fight in any way possible, to protect the BBB of C - i.e. itself - and its earnings potential. That's fine, but it's only business, don't mistake it for anything more righteous. The BBB of C and the EBU are businesses just as much as FWP, they aren't paragons of virtue sworn to rid the boxing world of dodginess. IMO the 'gamekeepers' are no better than the 'poachers', this is a business squabble, not a fight between good and evil

That's the harshest assessment of the 'boards' I've seen for a while. The EBU is an extension of the BBBoC in the sense that they are a governing body of sorts; Britain has more votes than anyone else because it has more pro boxers (I believe) than anyone else involved. What's a red herring is this constant throwing in the hat of the fact that Giles is the VP of the EBU...where else are they supposed to get their officials from? They're a body constituted to represent those members. It would be strange if there wasn't an influential BBBoC member in the EBU. I don't think this means the latter is an extension of the former. The rest could get together and kick Britain out if they wanted to...more than enough votes left to do so.

To equate the BBBoC and the EBU directly in business terms with FWP is stretching things to breaking point, IMO. All businesses, yes. There the comparison ends. FWP has been around five minutes and was only formed months before the CEO's last similar company went under after a high court judgment levied against it in favour of one of its most high profile clients.

For all the Board's failings, come on.

And who are the individuals from the BBBoC and the EBU earning a fortune from their positions which, of course, is the raison d'etre behind most private businesses? I doubt there are any (well, in the BBBoC anyway).

They might be businesses all but the 'gamekeepers' are a completely different kettle than the 'poachers'.

Glyn is still upset about the interview he did with Robert Smith

dondada wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:

earsjohn wrote:

That's the harshest assessment of the 'boards' I've seen for a while. The EBU is an extension of the BBBoC in the sense that they are a governing body of sorts; Britain has more votes than anyone else because it has more pro boxers (I believe) than anyone else involved. What's a red herring is this
constant throwing in the hat of the fact that Giles is the VP of the EBU...where else are they supposed to get their officials from? They're a body constituted to represent those members. It would be strange if there wasn't an influential BBBoC member in the EBU. I don't think this means the latter is an extension of the former. The rest could get together and kick Britain out if they wanted to...more than enough votes left to do so.


To equate the BBBoC and the EBU directly in business terms with FWP is stretching things to breaking point, IMO. All businesses, yes. There the comparison ends. FWP has been around five
minutes and was only formed months before the CEO's last similar company went under after a high court judgment levied against it in favour of one of its most high profile clients.

For all the Board's failings, come on.

And who are the individuals from the BBBoC and the EBU earning a fortune from their positions
which, of course, is the raison d'etre behind most private businesses? I doubt there are any (well, in the BBBoC anyway).


I haven't got issues with either Ian, you cannot say the same mate. Generally speaking you are opposed to one side of this argument and you are very open about that fact. I am not opposed to either side per se, both have positives and negatives. I look at this situation cold, for what it is. My one issue with the Board is its complete lack of democracy. It is a monopolist organisation and I have complained about that for almost 20 years, it's not a cause I've picked up on a few months ago. I've dealt with the Board for as long as I've worked in this business, my feelings on one aspect of their business - albeit one of crucial importance not just in boxing but to western society, democracy - has not got in the way of this. I've got no major issues with the Board, though I do believe it needs to drag itself into this century. But the Board has done a fantastic job over the years.

My references to FWP are only because of this site's childish and vaguely politicised policy of not even allowing the promoter's name to appear on it. Obviously the man is the business, this goes without saying whatever name he operates under, so relative longevity of business names is totally irrelevant. They are businesses and my reading of this situation is not clouded by stances, emotions or perceived personalities. Both sides depend on the success of their businesses to earn money and they would all love some form of monopoly. They will all do whatever they can to protect their livlihoods and hopefully prosper. All. And that is totally reasonable.

It's impossible for me to ignore Britain's greater representation at the EBU and the clout of Charlie Giles as vice president of that organisation when considering a voting process. It doesn't matter why Britain has more members, that isn't an issue that concerns me in the least, normisnit relevanr to this situation. Votes are about numbers and Britain has a greater number than most. It also holds massive sway with other nations. Britain is the dominant force within the EBU. I don't see why recognising as much should be a problem. It is a fact and certainly not a red herring in this particular context. Clearly the promoter has a major problem with Giles, as do many other licence holders, but this isn't connected to the amount of British votes within the EBU and the sway Britain holds. It far predates that. Britain has earned its degree of superior representation and it is only natural that it will use it to its own benefit. But I am not going to ignore the implications of that and pretend 'Europe' has come out in support of Britain in this issue when Britain is so powerful within the EBU as to seriously affect a voting process.

They're all as bad as each other IMO. None of them would have jobs if their businesses collapsed and that is the underlying issue behind this unfortunate situation. Right and wrong left town a while back as far as I'm concerned mate.

Glyn Leach wrote:

dondada wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:

That's the harshest assessment of the 'boards' I've seen for a while. The EBU is an extension of the BBBoC in the sense that they are a governing body of sorts; Britain has more votes than anyone else because it has more pro boxers (I believe) than anyone else involved. What's a red herring is this
constant throwing in the hat of the fact that Giles is the VP of the EBU...where else are they supposed to get their officials from? They're a body constituted to represent those members. It would be strange if there wasn't an influential BBBoC member in the EBU. I don't think this means the latter is an extension of the former. The rest could get together and kick Britain out if they wanted to...more than enough votes left to do so.


To equate the BBBoC and the EBU directly in business terms with FWP is stretching things to breaking point, IMO. All businesses, yes. There the comparison ends. FWP has been around five
minutes and was only formed months before the CEO's last similar company went under after a high court judgment levied against it in favour of one of its most high profile clients.

For all the Board's failings, come on.

And who are the individuals from the BBBoC and the EBU earning a fortune from their positions
which, of course, is the raison d'etre behind most private businesses? I doubt there are any (well, in the BBBoC anyway).


I haven't got issues with either Ian, you cannot say the same mate. Generally speaking you are opposed to one side of this argument and you are very open about that fact. I am not opposed to either side per se, both have positives and negatives. I look at this situation cold, for what it is. My one issue with the Board is its complete lack of democracy. It is a monopolist organisation and I have complained about that for almost 20 years, it's not a cause I've picked up on a few months ago. I've dealt with the Board for as long as I've worked in this business, my feelings on one aspect of their business - albeit one of crucial importance not just in boxing but to western society, democracy - has not got in the way of this. I've got no major issues with the Board, though I do believe it needs to drag itself into this century. But the Board has done a fantastic job over the years.

My references to FWP are only because of this site's childish and vaguely politicised policy of not even allowing the promoter's name to appear on it. Obviously the man is the business, this goes without saying whatever name he operates under, so relative longevity of business names is totally irrelevant. They are businesses and my reading of this situation is not clouded by stances, emotions or perceived personalities. Both sides depend on the success of their businesses to earn money and they would all love some form of monopoly. They will all do whatever they can to protect their livlihoods and hopefully prosper. All. And that is totally reasonable.

It's impossible for me to ignore Britain's greater representation at the EBU and the clout of Charlie Giles as vice president of that organisation when considering a voting process. It doesn't matter why Britain has more members, that isn't an issue that concerns me in the least, normisnit relevanr to this situation. Votes are about numbers and Britain has a greater number than most. It also holds massive sway with other nations. Britain is the dominant force within the EBU. I don't see why recognising as much should be a problem. It is a fact and certainly not a red herring in this particular context. Clearly the promoter has a major problem with Giles, as do many other licence holders, but this isn't connected to the amount of British votes within the EBU and the sway Britain holds. It far predates that. Britain has earned its degree of superior representation and it is only natural that it will use it to its own benefit. But I am not going to ignore the implications of that and pretend 'Europe' has come out in support of Britain in this issue when Britain is so powerful within the EBU as to seriously affect a voting process.

They're all as bad as each other IMO. None of them would have jobs if their businesses collapsed and that is the underlying issue behind this unfortunate situation. Right and wrong left town a while back as far as I'm concerned mate.

Apart from the fact that it was a 94 per cent vote by the EBU against Luxembourg. Don't believe all the Warren hype. The BBBC may have a lot of clout on the EBU, but they don't have anything like a majority. Virtually no one supported Luxembourg. All the main European federations backed the BBBC.

The Board's big problem is that they don't have money. The Board probably has no more than 3 full-time staff and Charlie Giles isn't one of them.

All other sports' governing bodies make money from TV rights, but in boxing all the TV money goes directly to the promoter. Thus they have to run things on a shoestring, while several people put out lots of lies about officials living it up on mega expences.

Warren complained about Giles in Munich (and you obviously don't like Giles, Glynn), but did Chisora, or Warren pay for the Board to send someone? Did a cut of Chisora's purse for that fight go to the Board? I think you know the answer is no.

So you have the big promoters trying to bully the Board and the small promoters saying the Board charges too much. Maybe anarchy is the answer because that is what will happen if the Board loses.

gobbles wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:

dondada wrote:

That's the harshest assessment of the 'boards' I've seen for a while. The EBU is an extension of the BBBoC in the sense that they are a governing body of sorts; Britain has more votes than anyone else because it has more pro boxers (I believe) than anyone else involved. What's a red herring is this
constant throwing in the hat of the fact that Giles is the VP of the EBU...where else are they supposed to get their officials from? They're a body constituted to represent those members. It would be strange if there wasn't an influential BBBoC member in the EBU. I don't think this means the latter is an extension of the former. The rest could get together and kick Britain out if they wanted to...more than enough votes left to do so.


To equate the BBBoC and the EBU directly in business terms with FWP is stretching things to breaking point, IMO. All businesses, yes. There the comparison ends. FWP has been around five
minutes and was only formed months before the CEO's last similar company went under after a high court judgment levied against it in favour of one of its most high profile clients.

For all the Board's failings, come on.

And who are the individuals from the BBBoC and the EBU earning a fortune from their positions
which, of course, is the raison d'etre behind most private businesses? I doubt there are any (well, in the BBBoC anyway).


I haven't got issues with either Ian, you cannot say the same mate. Generally speaking you are opposed to one side of this argument and you are very open about that fact. I am not opposed to either side per se, both have positives and negatives. I look at this situation cold, for what it is. My one issue with the Board is its complete lack of democracy. It is a monopolist organisation and I have complained about that for almost 20 years, it's not a cause I've picked up on a few months ago. I've dealt with the Board for as long as I've worked in this business, my feelings on one aspect of their business - albeit one of crucial importance not just in boxing but to western society, democracy - has not got in the way of this. I've got no major issues with the Board, though I do believe it needs to drag itself into this century. But the Board has done a fantastic job over the years.

My references to FWP are only because of this site's childish and vaguely politicised policy of not even allowing the promoter's name to appear on it. Obviously the man is the business, this goes without saying whatever name he operates under, so relative longevity of business names is totally irrelevant. They are businesses and my reading of this situation is not clouded by stances, emotions or perceived personalities. Both sides depend on the success of their businesses to earn money and they would all love some form of monopoly. They will all do whatever they can to protect their livlihoods and hopefully prosper. All. And that is totally reasonable.

It's impossible for me to ignore Britain's greater representation at the EBU and the clout of Charlie Giles as vice president of that organisation when considering a voting process. It doesn't matter why Britain has more members, that isn't an issue that concerns me in the least, normisnit relevanr to this situation. Votes are about numbers and Britain has a greater number than most. It also holds massive sway with other nations. Britain is the dominant force within the EBU. I don't see why recognising as much should be a problem. It is a fact and certainly not a red herring in this particular context. Clearly the promoter has a major problem with Giles, as do many other licence holders, but this isn't connected to the amount of British votes within the EBU and the sway Britain holds. It far predates that. Britain has earned its degree of superior representation and it is only natural that it will use it to its own benefit. But I am not going to ignore the implications of that and pretend 'Europe' has come out in support of Britain in this issue when Britain is so powerful within the EBU as to seriously affect a voting process.

They're all as bad as each other IMO. None of them would have jobs if their businesses collapsed and that is the underlying issue behind this unfortunate situation. Right and wrong left town a while back as far as I'm concerned mate.

Apart from the fact that it was a 94 per cent vote by the EBU against Luxembourg. Don't believe all the Warren hype. The BBBC may have a lot of clout on the EBU, but they don't have anything like a majority. Virtually no one supported Luxembourg. All the main European federations backed the BBBC.

The Board's big problem is that they don't have money. The Board probably has no more than 3 full-time staff and Charlie Giles isn't one of them.

All other sports' governing bodies make money from TV rights, but in boxing all the TV money goes directly to the promoter. Thus they have to run things on a shoestring, while several people put out lots of lies about officials living it up on mega expences.

Warren complained about Giles in Munich (and you obviously don't like Giles, Glynn), but did Chisora, or Warren pay for the Board to send someone? Did a cut of Chisora's purse for that fight go to the Board? I think you know the answer is no.

So you have the big promoters trying to bully the Board and the small promoters saying the Board charges too much. Maybe anarchy is the answer because that is what will happen if the Board loses.

Couple of small points a cut of chisoras purse would have gone to the board 4 percent any purses over 1500 pounds pay board tax.Also a percentage from tv money goes to the board.

jonp wrote:

gobbles wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote: That's the harshest assessment of the 'boards' I've seen for a while. The EBU is an extension of the BBBoC in the sense that they are a governing body of sorts; Britain has more votes than anyone else because it has more pro boxers (I believe) than anyone else involved. What's a red herring is this
constant throwing in the hat of the fact that Giles is the VP of the EBU...where else are they supposed to get their officials from? They're a body constituted to represent those members. It would be strange if there wasn't an influential BBBoC member in the EBU. I don't think this means the latter is an extension of the former. The rest could get together and kick Britain out if they wanted to...more than enough votes left to do so.


To equate the BBBoC and the EBU directly in business terms with FWP is stretching things to breaking point, IMO. All businesses, yes. There the comparison ends. FWP has been around five
minutes and was only formed months before the CEO's last similar company went under after a high court judgment levied against it in favour of one of its most high profile clients.

For all the Board's failings, come on.

And who are the individuals from the BBBoC and the EBU earning a fortune from their positions
which, of course, is the raison d'etre behind most private businesses? I doubt there are any (well, in the BBBoC anyway).


I haven't got issues with either Ian, you cannot say the same mate. Generally speaking you are opposed to one side of this argument and you are very open about that fact. I am not opposed to either side per se, both have positives and negatives. I look at this situation cold, for what it is. My one issue with the Board is its complete lack of democracy. It is a monopolist organisation and I have complained about that for almost 20 years, it's not a cause I've picked up on a few months ago. I've dealt with the Board for as long as I've worked in this business, my feelings on one aspect of their business - albeit one of crucial importance not just in boxing but to western society, democracy - has not got in the way of this. I've got no major issues with the Board, though I do believe it needs to drag itself into this century. But the Board has done a fantastic job over the years.

My references to FWP are only because of this site's childish and vaguely politicised policy of not even allowing the promoter's name to appear on it. Obviously the man is the business, this goes without saying whatever name he operates under, so relative longevity of business names is totally irrelevant. They are businesses and my reading of this situation is not clouded by stances, emotions or perceived personalities. Both sides depend on the success of their businesses to earn money and they would all love some form of monopoly. They will all do whatever they can to protect their livlihoods and hopefully prosper. All. And that is totally reasonable.

It's impossible for me to ignore Britain's greater representation at the EBU and the clout of Charlie Giles as vice president of that organisation when considering a voting process. It doesn't matter why Britain has more members, that isn't an issue that concerns me in the least, normisnit relevanr to this situation. Votes are about numbers and Britain has a greater number than most. It also holds massive sway with other nations. Britain is the dominant force within the EBU. I don't see why recognising as much should be a problem. It is a fact and certainly not a red herring in this particular context. Clearly the promoter has a major problem with Giles, as do many other licence holders, but this isn't connected to the amount of British votes within the EBU and the sway Britain holds. It far predates that. Britain has earned its degree of superior representation and it is only natural that it will use it to its own benefit. But I am not going to ignore the implications of that and pretend 'Europe' has come out in support of Britain in this issue when Britain is so powerful within the EBU as to seriously affect a voting process.

They're all as bad as each other IMO. None of them would have jobs if their businesses collapsed and that is the underlying issue behind this unfortunate situation. Right and wrong left town a while back as far as I'm concerned mate.

Apart from the fact that it was a 94 per cent vote by the EBU against Luxembourg. Don't believe all the Warren hype. The BBBC may have a lot of clout on the EBU, but they don't have anything like a majority. Virtually no one supported Luxembourg. All the main European federations backed the BBBC.

The Board's big problem is that they don't have money. The Board probably has no more than 3 full-time staff and Charlie Giles isn't one of them.

All other sports' governing bodies make money from TV rights, but in boxing all the TV money goes directly to the promoter. Thus they have to run things on a shoestring, while several people put out lots of lies about officials living it up on mega expences.

Warren complained about Giles in Munich (and you obviously don't like Giles, Glynn), but did Chisora, or Warren pay for the Board to send someone? Did a cut of Chisora's purse for that fight go to the Board? I think you know the answer is no.

So you have the big promoters trying to bully the Board and the small promoters saying the Board charges too much. Maybe anarchy is the answer because that is what will happen if the Board loses.

Couple of small points a cut of chisoras purse would have gone to the board 4 percent any purses over 1500 pounds pay board tax.Also a percentage from tv money goes to the board.

Is that purses paid in the UK, or does it include purses paid overseas?

Any british licence holders have to pay it.Think it may have been part of the reason macklin gave up his british licence before the martinez fight probly saved him about 20k.

Pretty sure if british guy is paid by british tv they have got to pay on that even if the fight is abroad.

jonp wrote:Any british licence holders have to pay it.Think it may have been part of the reason macklin gave up his british licence before the martinez fight probly saved him about 20k.

Pretty sure if british guy is paid by british tv they have got to pay on that even if the fight is abroad.

I was of belief that they only get a cut if the fight is here. Find it difficult to believe that the Board would have got 4% of a Hatton purse for instance.

Apparently someone called Glynn doesn't like Giles. Lucky I don't have that problem. For me, he is just an unpopular administrator, no more. I have no view on him other than those I hear from Board licence holders, a good few of which have a problem with him - and they are not confined to Hertfordshire, believe me. And of course interested parties will try to dominate the administrative body, that comes with the turf. It's part of the business they choose to be in. We should feel sorry for the 'little guy' because of that? The 'big guy' is obviously the villain of the piece? I don't get it. Anyway...

There is hype on all sides, believe me. You have to see it for what it is, not what you'd like it to be or what you think it should be. Is it so wrong to suggest there might be two sides to this argument? Just because you don't like one side, anybody who recognises the other side of the coin must 'not like them'. Deary deary me. If only life were as simple.

Glyn Leach wrote:My references to FWP are only because of this site's childish and vaguely politicised policy of not even allowing the promoter's name to appear on it.

Just a small point (and happy to be corrected if I'm wrong), but I've always been operating under the distinct impression that FW's name was only removed back in the day as part of a bid to 'safeguard' the site from legal action in the wake of threats by representatives of that said person regarding some comments that had appeared.

Deserter wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:My references to FWP are only because of this site's childish and vaguely politicised policy of not even allowing the promoter's name to appear on it.

Just a small point (and happy to be corrected if I'm wrong), but I've always been operating under the distinct impression that FW's name was only removed back in the day as part of a bid to 'safeguard' the site from legal action in the wake of threats by representatives of that said person regarding some comments that had appeared.

I mentioned FWP only as a way of getting round the site's policy while still referring to the promoter by name, as I wish to refer to him. In my opinion there is still no need to leave out anyone's name, no print publication would do that. I have received several disquieting legal letters from the promoter in question, but have always referred to him by name. Also, the TV network which the promoter is connected is given the same 'allegedly' treatment and it hasn't sued anyone to my knowledge. While Boxrec's relationships with other parties are not my concern, I cannot be expected to ignore them either. But none of this is a major issue for me and I didn't bring it up. All I've done is explain myself.

I believe all sides of the argument should be heard and considered. I don't expect everyone to agree with my opinions, that has often been the case. If I've got my facts wrong, tell me — and I'm sure someone would. But I don't believe I have. I'm not in a position to support anyone, that would be against the spirit of objectivity, but I'm not perfect either, my personal dislike of GBP is well known. I understand that emotions can cloud issues and the need to step back at times in order to try to form a balanced opinion, but it isn't always easy and I understand that fully.

I have a naturally cynical perspective that allows me to see upsides and downsides. For the record, my own feelings towards this fight are largely negative, as I wrote in the magazine last month. I believe it to be 'morally' wrong, but it certainly isn't illegal and that, for me, is a difference that helps me view the arguments objectively. Thus far both sides gone against the rules of the Board, either by seeking licensing elsewhere or ignoring their own rules. Neither side is covering themselves in glory, it is a dirty little business squabble that will probably only get messier.

Glyn Leach wrote:

Deserter wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:My references to FWP are only because of this site's childish and vaguely politicised policy of not even allowing the promoter's name to appear on it.

Just a small point (and happy to be corrected if I'm wrong), but I've always been operating under the distinct impression that FW's name was only removed back in the day as part of a bid to 'safeguard' the site from legal action in the wake of threats by representatives of that said person regarding some comments that had appeared.

I mentioned FWP only as a way of getting round the site's policy while still referring to the promoter by name, as I wish to refer to him. In my opinion there is still no need to leave out anyone's name, no print publication would do that. I have received several disquieting legal letters from the promoter in question, but have always referred to him by name. Also, the TV network which the promoter is connected is given the same 'allegedly' treatment and it hasn't sued anyone to my knowledge. While Boxrec's relationships with other parties are not my concern, I cannot be expected to ignore them either. But none of this is a major issue for me and I didn't bring it up. All I've done is explain myself.
.

Realise all of that Glyn. My point was solely that to the best of my knowledge the intent in omitting reference to FW was to safeguard the site, rather than to be 'childish' or play politics.
As a former editor I know enough myself about libel to know this wouldn't constitute a defence, but I do believe that was the intent, even if it wasn't/isn't a practical solution.
If memory serves me correctly, having been an active poster on the site when the move happened, it was definitely in the immediate wake of some 'threats' and I can easily understand how a site owner who doesn't have intimate knowledge of defamation and is feeling pressured by a 'big hitter' would introduce any measure they thought would address the issues.
Agree with everything else you've said in your post but genuinely don't think the omitting of a certain promoter's name is motivated by childishness, rather it's just a misguided response to legal threats.

Glyn Leach wrote:I haven't got issues with either Ian, you cannot say the same mate.(1) Generally speaking you are opposed to one side of this argument and you are very open about that fact. I am not opposed to either side per se, both have positives and negatives. I look at this situation cold, for what it is. My one issue with the Board is its complete lack of democracy. It is a monopolist organisation and I have complained about that for almost 20 years, it's not a cause I've picked up on a few months ago. I've dealt with the Board for as long as I've worked in this business, my feelings on one aspect of their business - albeit one of crucial importance not just in boxing but to western society, democracy - has not got in the way of this. I've got no major issues with the Board, though I do believe it needs to drag itself into this century. But the Board has done a fantastic job over the years.(2)

My references to FWP are only because of this site's childish and vaguely politicised policy of not even allowing the promoter's name to appear on it.(3) Obviously the man is the business, this goes without saying whatever name he operates under, so relative longevity of business names is totally irrelevant. They are businesses and my reading of this situation is not clouded by stances, emotions or perceived personalities. Both sides depend on the success of their businesses to earn money and they would all love some form of monopoly.(4) They will all do whatever they can to protect their livlihoods and hopefully prosper. All. And that is totally reasonable.

It's impossible for me to ignore Britain's greater representation at the EBU and the clout of Charlie Giles as vice president of that organisation when considering a voting process.(5) It doesn't matter why Britain has more members, that isn't an issue that concerns me in the least, normisnit relevanr to this situation. Votes are about numbers and Britain has a greater number than most. It also holds massive sway with other nations. Britain is the dominant force within the EBU. I don't see why recognising as much should be a problem. It is a fact and certainly not a red herring in this particular context. Clearly the promoter has a major problem with Giles, as do many other licence holders, but this isn't connected to the amount of British votes within the EBU and the sway Britain holds. It far predates that. Britain has earned its degree of superior representation and it is only natural that it will use it to its own benefit. But I am not going to ignore the implications of that and pretend 'Europe' has come out in support of Britain in this issue when Britain is so powerful within the EBU as to seriously affect a voting process.

They're all as bad as each other IMO. None of them would have jobs if their businesses collapsed and that is the underlying issue behind this unfortunate situation. Right and wrong left town a while back as far as I'm concerned mate.

I wish I was clever enough to do those little individualised quote things but I'm not so I've had to do it this way.

1. This is the reaction I get all the time - but I expected a bit better from you mate. I am generally anti-FW in the same way I'm anti loads of things in life that I don't believe in from a moral point of view. Funnily enough, the main reason for this has absolutely nothing to do with boxing but revolves around defamation issues.

I just don't believe all the spin that's coming out that this is the latest stage in some kind of organic political protest and I don't agree with what seem to be clear attempts to subvert the authority of the Board - however many mistakes they've made. Ask yourself this...would Baker et al be doing this if Lee Haskins and Chris Edwards had a ruck at a press conference? No, because that fight would generate about £3.50. I really hate the way people think my opinions on a matter are solely based on the individuals involved. They're influenced, of course, but I can always justify them. It's the bed that either I've made or has been made for me, I do understand that. I've been asked if I would think the same if this was Hennessy or whoever and the answer is 'yes'.

2. Agreed - I've said as much, most recently in BM.

3. It's interesting that someone as involved in the industry as you are thinks this - we're going to have to put a sticky somewhere about this. This is simply to show, in response to previous, tiresome legal actions, that the forum has actually taken some steps to address defamation issues and was based on legal advice. I'm on here as a mod solely to keep an eye on potentially defamatory posts and remove them.

4. I get what you're saying but a business monopoly for a promoter and a monopoly for a governing body are entirely different, IMO.

5. No, I don't say ignore it...I just say that it's understandable.

gobbles wrote:Apart from the fact that it was a 94 per cent vote by the EBU against Luxembourg. Don't believe all the Warren hype. The BBBC may have a lot of clout on the EBU, but they don't have anything like a majority. Virtually no one supported Luxembourg. All the main European federations backed the BBBC.

Actually gobbles (and I don't say this to undermine you at all - I agree with almost everything you post on here) but I did get a bit of info through about how the voting broke down in terms of members rather than votes:

17 voted in favour of expulsion of LBF should they sanction Chisora-Haye
12 voted against the expulsion of the LBF
1 abstained

So had it been 'one member, one vote', it wouldn't have got through as they would have needed 20. But, as I explained to the person giving me the info who wanted me to do 'the real story', it's newsworthy but it doesn't change anything materially because I don't believe that nations who have fewer professional boxers than my local gym (quite literally) should have the same voting rights as Britain, France, Germany, etc.

What you say is right and I've pointed it out - Britain is (rightly) influential but holds just over 20% of total votes...a big chunk but not one to rule the roost.

Glyn Leach wrote:You have to see it for what it is, not what you'd like it to be or what you think it should be. Is it so wrong to suggest there might be two sides to this argument? Just because you don't like one side, anybody who recognises the other side of the coin must 'not like them'. Deary deary me. If only life were as simple.

This is absolutely true. I for one have continually said the Board needs to change in big ways and f**ked up on Chisora's ban in particular.