BoxRec

Only seen that they condemn it and this from Steve Lillis twitter " BBBofC statement says that licence holders involved in #hayechisora will have "deemed to terminate their membership" of board #boxing"

http://news.boxrec.com/news/2012/bbboc- ... -statement

Does this mean if Burns/Mitchell was on the undercard they would loose their licenses?

at the board trying to take high ground

They've gone up in my estimation, frankly (pardon the pun) I hope his licence is terminated. I'm probably in the minority but I wouldn't
pay to watch this event as much as I'd like to see the fight.....

The board have no controlling power over this fight and it is a restriction of trade if they try to prevent it from happening. The board have been inept for a number of years and should look inside the organisation for the root of this problem rather than throwing toys out of the pram. Also the actions which some of the officials and judges get away with are frankly embarrassing yet the board takes no action? The board also have no controlling right over all fights happening in the UK therefore if they were to pursue removing fighters participating in the event then they would not be restricting trade unfairly

smoggy7188 wrote:Does this mean if Burns/Mitchell was on the undercard they would loose their licenses?

Looks like it. It says "anyone who participates in the promotion in any way". To me that means the whole show, and every fighter on it.

Camcas wrote:The board have no controlling power over this fight and it is a restriction of trade if they try to prevent it from happening. The board have been inept for a number of years and should look inside the organisation for the root of this problem rather than throwing toys out of the pram. Also the actions which some of the officials and judges get away with are frankly embarrassing yet the board takes no action? The board also have no controlling right over all fights happening in the UK therefore if they were to pursue removing fighters participating in the event then they would not be restricting trade unfairly

Yep, there are certainly things that the Board do wrong.

The statement isn't one of them.

Camcas wrote:The board have no controlling power over this fight and it is a restriction of trade if they try to prevent it from happening. The board have been inept for a number of years and should look inside the organisation for the root of this problem rather than throwing toys out of the pram. Also the actions which some of the officials and judges get away with are frankly embarrassing yet the board takes no action? The board also have no controlling right over all fights happening in the UK therefore if they were to pursue removing fighters participating in the event then they would not be restricting trade unfairly

I agree with some of this but fw chirsora and haye are to blame for this. It pure arrogance that they think the show can go on with no come back. When u read between the lines of the statmeant does it mean if allegedly show it they wiill not be allowed to show anymore bbbofc shows?

I think the board are spot on. If the fighter or fighter chooses to fight under a foreign boxing license, then they surely are no longer eligible to fight under the auspices of the BBBofC. Whether or not you agree with the board's initial suspension, they surely must be applauded for sticking to their guns here- otherwise it makes a complete mockery of their license in any case.

There is much not to like in the board's actions in the past, but this instance, they are entirely just.

Let's hope they stick to what they've said here.

This is where the split will happen old board and new board through Luxemburg.

This gives the likes of Burns and Mitchell a decision to make. Do they take the big fight (and payday), but risk losing their licence?

greenyox3 wrote:This gives the likes of Burns and Mitchell a decision to make. Do they take the big fight (and payday), but risk losing their licence?

If they care about their sport, there's no decision for them to make.

Heiwa wrote:

greenyox3 wrote:This gives the likes of Burns and Mitchell a decision to make. Do they take the big fight (and payday), but risk losing their licence?

If they care about their sport, there's no decision for them to make.

In an ideal world yes. But these guys aren't millionaires, and there's more of their career behind them than ahead, for both men.

greenyox3 wrote:

Heiwa wrote:

greenyox3 wrote:This gives the likes of Burns and Mitchell a decision to make. Do they take the big fight (and payday), but risk losing their licence?

If they care about their sport, there's no decision for them to make.

In an ideal world yes. But these guys aren't millionaires, and there's more of their career behind them than ahead, for both men.

Fair point, a shame it had to come to this :(

greenyox3 wrote:This gives the likes of Burns and Mitchell a decision to make. Do they take the big fight (and payday), but risk losing their licence?

But they should be headling a bill on their own. Would they get more by being on this show.

just let them fornicating fight. for fornicate sake,they pushed back mayweathers jail sentence because of a boxing match.

I'd have more sympathy with the BBBoC if they were a transparent democratically elected organisation!

They didnt seem to have an issue when they strong armed the Irish board into having British officials last month for Rogan-Fury.

Povetkin vs rahman is on as the main fight on box rec schedule and that is commissioned by the board. It is being co promoted by w@teen and sauerland so do you think it will be a commissioned show then haye vs chisora will turn up and just have a fight in the ring afterwards? That way it is a completely different show and the undercard will be fine? ???

How is that going to work?

to me, its not about the BBB Of C, its about making a statement to those who think they can do what they like without suffering the consequences of their actions...

As pointed out by a fair few people, it leaves the other boxers, trainers etc portentially involved in the bill with a big decision to make.

To my mind, at the minute its better-the-devil-you-know.

I wonder if Boxing News and Boxing Monthly will run adverts for the bill?

exactly...especially as FW bailed them out financially, if they ban all concerned then FW will just promote under the luxembourg banner for all his UK shows......we are all EC brothers united, the BBB of C will need to be careful they are not going against 'equal opportunities' law, and i have a feeling they are!!

watch this space...FW could sue them for that reason..

leforge wrote:

greenyox3 wrote:This gives the likes of Burns and Mitchell a decision to make. Do they take the big fight (and payday), but risk losing their licence?

But they should be headling a bill on their own. Would they get more by being on this show.

Again in an ideal world, yes they do deserve to be headlining. But this show will, like it or not, completely pack out Upton Park and sell a LOT of CH456 subscriptions. They might get a bigger share if they were on their own show, but this will be a smaller share of a much, much bigger pie.