BoxRec

I am not a legal expert, but I am not sure Bruce's legal action worked out against the Board.


http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/2074.html

Any chance of a summary please?

I read 10 minutes worth and then the last paragraph and all I got from it was the judge has sided with the board (members of the same funny handshake club a possibility?).

I really can't make head nor tail of that transcript. If the Board have taken Baker on and won then more kudos to them. Now we know where we all stand and perhaps we can all move forward.

Simply, this was an application to the court for an injunction to allow mr baker to have his managers licence restored pending his appeal being heard by the Board in July. This was refused. So his managers licence remains withdrawn until the appeal hearing at the Board.

The important point in all this for all you licence holders is that YOUR Board has now lost more money in legal fees defending its position. So too of course has Mr Baker. Guess who DID make money ?

So we still don't know if the Board are in direct ccontravention of EU directives?

The Insider wrote:So we still don't know if the Board are in direct ccontravention of EU directives?

My understanding of points 15 and 19 in that case are that the European Commission determined in 1999 that organising a sport under a national governing body does not breach any rules or laws and sport isn't covered by articles 81 and 82 of the treaty, whatever they happen to be. 19 refers to articles 101 and 102, once again I don't know what they are, and determining whether competition rules would apply, the method for doing that is laid out here:

Step One. Is the sports association to be considered an "undertaking" or "association of undertakings"? This depends upon its carrying out an economic activity, in the absence of which Arts 101 and 102 have no application.

Step Two. Does the rule restrict competition (Art 101) or constitute abuse of a dominant position (Art 102) having regard to the rule's overall context and its objectives? Is any such restriction inherent in the pursuit of its objectives? Is it proportionate to that objective?

Step Three. Is trade between Member States affected?

Step Four. Does the rule fulfil the conditions of Art 102?

As far as I can tell, if the board isn't being run as a profit making organisation, in other words as not for profit, articles 101 and 102, both are shown in step 2, do not apply. I can't see how trade between member states would be affected, so step 3 shouldn't be a problem and if articles 101 and 102 don't apply thanks to step 1. I've just done some research on articles 81 and 82, turns out they were renumbered to 101 and 102, so the same articles are being mentioned in points 15 and 19.

My understanding of all that is that the board doesn't, or with some changes won't, breach the EU's rules on competition and restraint of trade.

fornicate me!!! Not bad for a 17 year old kid

expe wrote:

The Insider wrote:So we still don't know if the Board are in direct ccontravention of EU directives?

My understanding of points 15 and 19 in that case are that the European Commission determined in 1999 that organising a sport under a national governing body does not breach any rules or laws and sport isn't covered by articles 81 and 82 of the treaty, whatever they happen to be. 19 refers to articles 101 and 102, once again I don't know what they are, and determining whether competition rules would apply, the method for doing that is laid out here:

Step One. Is the sports association to be considered an "undertaking" or "association of undertakings"? This depends upon its carrying out an economic activity, in the absence of which Arts 101 and 102 have no application.

Step Two. Does the rule restrict competition (Art 101) or constitute abuse of a dominant position (Art 102) having regard to the rule's overall context and its objectives? Is any such restriction inherent in the pursuit of its objectives? Is it proportionate to that objective?

Step Three. Is trade between Member States affected?

Step Four. Does the rule fulfil the conditions of Art 102?

As far as I can tell, if the board isn't being run as a profit making organisation, in other words as not for profit, articles 101 and 102, both are shown in step 2, do not apply. I can't see how trade between member states would be affected, so step 3 shouldn't be a problem and if articles 101 and 102 don't apply thanks to step 1. I've just done some research on articles 81 and 82, turns out they were renumbered to 101 and 102, so the same articles are being mentioned in points 15 and 19.

My understanding of all that is that the board doesn't, or with some changes won't, breach the EU's rules on competition and restraint of trade.

Excellent. Cheers

expe wrote:

The Insider wrote:So we still don't know if the Board are in direct ccontravention of EU directives?

My understanding of points 15 and 19 in that case are that the European Commission determined in 1999 that organising a sport under a national governing body does not breach any rules or laws and sport isn't covered by articles 81 and 82 of the treaty, whatever they happen to be. 19 refers to articles 101 and 102, once again I don't know what they are, and determining whether competition rules would apply, the method for doing that is laid out here:

Step One. Is the sports association to be considered an "undertaking" or "association of undertakings"? This depends upon its carrying out an economic activity, in the absence of which Arts 101 and 102 have no application.

Step Two. Does the rule restrict competition (Art 101) or constitute abuse of a dominant position (Art 102) having regard to the rule's overall context and its objectives? Is any such restriction inherent in the pursuit of its objectives? Is it proportionate to that objective?

Step Three. Is trade between Member States affected?

Step Four. Does the rule fulfil the conditions of Art 102?

As far as I can tell, if the board isn't being run as a profit making organisation, in other words as not for profit, articles 101 and 102, both are shown in step 2, do not apply. I can't see how trade between member states would be affected, so step 3 shouldn't be a problem and if articles 101 and 102 don't apply thanks to step 1. I've just done some research on articles 81 and 82, turns out they were renumbered to 101 and 102, so the same articles are being mentioned in points 15 and 19.

My understanding of all that is that the board doesn't, or with some changes won't, breach the EU's rules on competition and restraint of trade.

Are you a lawyer ? Coz you really make a good job of spelling things out in terms that non lawyers can understand which is what we all want if not perhaps you should consider taking the profession up because you make more sense than the highly overpaid legal people in whose financial interest it is to keep this saga running as long as possible .As I was told many years ago If you reach a resolution to any legal issues the cash cow is then dead

WELL DONE MATE

Is it not simply the case that this is a bully-boy tactic from the board who have denied someone the right to make a living just because he did a job for someone else (worked with the GBA on a promotion in the UK)?

Maybe there is more to it and Mr Baker was naughty in some other way?

Will be interested to know who wins this and whether a national boxing board are really untouchable when it comes European law.

Even if the board are a non-profit organisation, their issuing of licenses to people that do or might "try" to make a profit must be considered.

I notice Suarez could get round his ban by playing in Kosovo as they aren't affiliated to FIFA.
Would FIFA have the right to extend his ban if he did play though?
Have they got the right to ban him at all?

ringtoneboxing wrote:Is it not simply the case that this is a bully-boy tactic from the board who have denied someone the right to make a living just because he did a job for someone else (worked with the GBA on a promotion in the UK)?

Maybe there is more to it and Mr Baker was naughty in some other way?

Will be interested to know who wins this and whether a national boxing board are really untouchable when it comes European law.

Even if the board are a non-profit organisation, their issuing of licenses to people that do or might "try" to make a profit must be considered.

With reference to the 'not for profit' comment some percentage of the licence fee money must be held as cash in the bank, as the legal bill paid by the BBBOC must be in excess of 20k for this latest failed action.

Coco wrote:I notice Suarez could get round his ban by playing in Kosovo as they aren't affiliated to FIFA.
Would FIFA have the right to extend his ban if he did play though?
Have they got the right to ban him at all?

lol about sums everything up mate there can only be one winner in any legal action and that is the lawyers who will always stoke up the gravy train untill it derails then move on to the next gravy train and milk that untill it again derails but never mind there is always another train to hop on board waiting at the station lol that about sums up the legal profession in my humble opinion