BoxRec

Maybe i have picked this up wrong, but is this how i read it?

http://maltaboxingcommission.com/News/?p=634

It had to happen sooner or later. The EU laws have been there a while, it's just needed someone with the balls and know how to use them to their advantage.

Why can't Ben Jones get a BBBoC Licence or have I read that wrong?

The Insider wrote:It had to happen sooner or later. The EU laws have been there a while, it's just needed someone with the balls and know how to use them to their advantage.

If the BBBoC are powerless to stop them, I'm not sure why their action took "balls". What were they risking?

dbflex wrote:

The Insider wrote:It had to happen sooner or later the laws have been there a while, it's just needed someone with the balls and know how to use them to their advantage.

If the BBBoC are powerless to stop them, I'm not sure why their action took "balls". What were they risking?

You've answered your own question there with the "If" part.

Are Board powerless? Someone seems to think so.

dbflex wrote:

The Insider wrote:It had to happen sooner or later. The EU laws have been there a while, it's just needed someone with the balls and know how to use them to their advantage.

If the BBBoC are powerless to stop them, I'm not sure why their action took "balls". What were they risking?

would the promoters /fighters .managers involved not be risking losing there liceance? Again i could have picked it up wrong

what i dont get , did the Malta, have there own officials/ref etc there?

Is the Luxembourg Board still unrecognised by the EBU?

How long before the lines between "professional boxing" and "unlicensed"/"White Collar" boxing are blurred?

That's not to say that what Malta did was sanction a white collar bout, but I do feel we are slowly heading that way

Weirdyman wrote:Is the Luxembourg Board still unrecognised by the EBU?

no. Nor is Malta or the GBA anymore.

The Insider wrote:

dbflex wrote:

The Insider wrote:It had to happen sooner or later the laws have been there a while, it's just needed someone with the balls and know how to use them to their advantage.

If the BBBoC are powerless to stop them, I'm not sure why their action took "balls". What were they risking?

You've answered your own question there with the "If" part.

Are Board powerless? Someone seems to think so.

You haven't uncovered some contentious theory there. The Board are powerless to stop another body sanctioning a fight. They do however have the power to prevent those involved from taking part in shows that THEY sanction. That's the distinction - they have authority over their own shows.

iamasadlittleboy wrote:How long before the lines between "professional boxing" and "unlicensed"/"White Collar" boxing are blurred?

That's not to say that what Malta did was sanction a white collar bout, but I do feel we are slowly heading that way

One of lads from our gym was out selling tickets for his English title defence he went to drop some tickets in a pub in Leeds when landlady said my nephews a boxer he's Leeds area champion our lad said there's no such thing she said yes he his he has a belt and gets paid to do it,normal man in street carnt tell difference these other commissions will make it worse

dbflex wrote:
You haven't uncovered some contentious theory there. The Board are powerless to stop another body sanctioning a fight. They do however have the power to prevent those involved from taking part in shows that THEY sanction. That's the distinction - they have authority over their own shows.

I haven't claimed to have uncovered anything, but I have been aware that these EU directives have been in place for a while for Licence holders to use to the detriment of the Board. I wouldn't be too sure about the Board being able to prevent Licence holders taking part in their shows if they have sought work/employment from other organisations. A Board licence enables you to work ON BBBoC shows, not FOR them.

The crux of it for me is actually covered in Gianlucas letter to the Board..

"The BBBofC is a Limited Liability company, as such like any other company should refrain from operating restrictive practises in order to prevent competition in the field of operation, or face the consequences of their actions"

The Insider wrote:

dbflex wrote:
You haven't uncovered some contentious theory there. The Board are powerless to stop another body sanctioning a fight. They do however have the power to prevent those involved from taking part in shows that THEY sanction. That's the distinction - they have authority over their own shows.

I haven't claimed to have uncovered anything, but I have been aware that these EU directives have been in place for a while for Licence holders to use to the detriment of the Board. I wouldn't be too sure about the Board being able to prevent Licence holders taking part in their shows if they have sought work/employment from other organisations. A Board licence enables you to work ON BBBoC shows, not FOR them.

The crux of it for me is actually covered in Gianlucas letter to the Board..

"The BBBofC is a Limited Liability company, as such like any other company should refrain from operating restrictive practises in order to prevent competition in the field of operation, or face the consequences of their actions"

Both of you make good comments IMO anybody who is not happy with the board should consider starting there own board of control or whatever they wish to call it and go it alone along with anybody else who thinks the same it wouldn't be difficult to set up at all I know one thing personally if I wasn't happy with any club or organisation I was involved with I would just walk away and join another one

spudder56 wrote:

The Insider wrote:

dbflex wrote:
You haven't uncovered some contentious theory there. The Board are powerless to stop another body sanctioning a fight. They do however have the power to prevent those involved from taking part in shows that THEY sanction. That's the distinction - they have authority over their own shows.

I haven't claimed to have uncovered anything, but I have been aware that these EU directives have been in place for a while for Licence holders to use to the detriment of the Board. I wouldn't be too sure about the Board being able to prevent Licence holders taking part in their shows if they have sought work/employment from other organisations. A Board licence enables you to work ON BBBoC shows, not FOR them.

The crux of it for me is actually covered in Gianlucas letter to the Board..

"The BBBofC is a Limited Liability company, as such like any other company should refrain from operating restrictive practises in order to prevent competition in the field of operation, or face the consequences of their actions"

Both of you make good comments IMO anybody who is not happy with the board should consider starting there own board of control or whatever they wish to call it and go it alone along with anybody else who thinks the same it wouldn't be difficult to set up at all I know one thing personally if I wasn't happy with any club or organisation I was involved with I would just walk away and join another one

The only stumbling block to legitimacy is recognition by the EBU. As long as the EBU only recognises one body per member country then the likes of the BUI and the BBBoC have an effective monopoly.

Slapbangwhallop thats a very good point perhaps legal action against the EBU is the route to go down to change that ruling but god knows how it would turn out

Can the EU not keep their greasy noses out of sport? The board should have removed the sanctioning of the entire show when they found out this was happening.

expe wrote:Can the EU not keep their greasy noses out of sport? The board should have removed the sanctioning of the entire show when they found out this was happening.

I would agree with that

expe wrote:Can the EU not keep their greasy noses out of sport? The board should have removed the sanctioning of the entire show when they found out this was happening.

So you agree that a self appointed ruler should oversee all boxing ??

Whatever your own view a dictatorship is exactly what it is really.

what benefit, does having more than one sanctioning body over seeing shoes in the UK ?

Will the fighters, Promotors and Paying fans see any difference in the quality? Im just looking at this objectively?

damianhucker1 wrote:

expe wrote:Can the EU not keep their greasy noses out of sport? The board should have removed the sanctioning of the entire show when they found out this was happening.

So you agree that a self appointed ruler should oversee all boxing ??

Whatever your own view a dictatorship is exactly what it is really.

It's not a question of agreeing with things as they are just what is a viable alternative given that the board/EBU appear to have no interest in changing their rules/constitution etc ?

There has never been anything to stop anybody setting up there own "Boxing Board" In fact quite a few have and they are known as "unlicenced"

Just like theres nothing stopping you setting up the Walkers Crisps Football Premier League.

I think the BBBoC will continue to be the favoured route as it is a renowned and respected organisation, worldwide.

Thats why it has a route into the elite championships such as the EBU and all recognised world bodies.

I dont think UEFA will accept the winners of the Walkers Crisps Premier League into their Champions League either!!

maninthemiddle wrote:There has never been anything to stop anybody setting up there own "Boxing Board" In fact quite a few have and they are known as "unlicenced"

Just like theres nothing stopping you setting up the Walkers Crisps Football Premier League.

I think the BBBoC will continue to be the favoured route as it is a renowned and respected organisation, worldwide.

Thats why it has a route into the elite championships such as the EBU and all recognised world bodies.

I dont think UEFA will accept the winners of the Walkers Crisps Premier League into their Champions League either!!

Very well put and I agree.

i have seen some of the semi-pro boxing and it is awful. 50 year olds fighting for fake European Heavyweight titles.

slapbangwhallop wrote:
The only stumbling block to legitimacy is recognition by the EBU. As long as the EBU only recognises one body per member country then the likes of the BUI and the BBBoC have an effective monopoly.

But aren't the EU directives in place to ensure these monopolies can't happen. I just wish the Board would clear things up one way or another. They didn't tell us they were spending licence holders money fighting Luxembourg in court ( I found out via YouTube) and they haven't responded to these latest round of "open letters". No one knows where they stand. Being open and transparent is the way forward.

The Insider wrote:

slapbangwhallop wrote:
The only stumbling block to legitimacy is recognition by the EBU. As long as the EBU only recognises one body per member country then the likes of the BUI and the BBBoC have an effective monopoly.

But aren't the EU directives in place to ensure these monopolies can't happen. I just wish the Board would clear things up one way or another. They didn't tell us they were spending licence holders money fighting Luxembourg in court ( I found out via YouTube) and they haven't responded to these latest round of "open letters". No one knows where they stand. Being open and transparent is the way forward.

spot on we all need answers mate

Is Bruce Baker involved with this? Does he have an issue with the board?