Page 1 of 1

WBA and sanctioning fees

Posted: 11 Oct 2015, 05:15
by Parson Cross
Seen it all now.
Eubank v Jeter is for the interim title - but the winner will immediately be stripped and the title given to the winner of Khomitsky and Blanco.
So Eubank and Jeter fighting for a title they could never hold ?
WTF ?

Re: WBA and sanctioning fees

Posted: 11 Oct 2015, 07:34
by Parson Cross
Sorry guys see it's been debated on the other thread.

Re: WBA and sanctioning fees

Posted: 11 Oct 2015, 07:39
by expe
This way they get two sanctioning fees instead of one.

Blanco who beat Khomitsky last night is apparently managed by a friend of the Mendoza family, as is Ismael Barroso, who has been named as mandatory for Derry Mathews' interim title.

Re: WBA and sanctioning fees

Posted: 11 Oct 2015, 08:03
by Boxing Prospect
From what I've heard Blanco looked VERY good last night.

Re: WBA and sanctioning fees

Posted: 11 Oct 2015, 08:26
by edgey2009
I'm sure ive seen Eddie Hearn answer a question on Twitter saying that Eubank Jr wont be stripped but he will be vacating due to the fight he is having on the 12th Decrmber!

Re: WBA and sanctioning fees

Posted: 11 Oct 2015, 09:14
by Parson Cross
So why not just vacate now - BEFORE the fight ?
You know the answer - to con the public into thinking the fight on 24 October is something special zzzzzzzz

Re: WBA and sanctioning fees

Posted: 11 Oct 2015, 09:16
by expe
Parson Cross wrote:So why not just vacate now - BEFORE the fight ?
You know the answer - to con the public into thinking the fight on 24 October is something special zzzzzzzz
Keep the WBA happy too, they want their sanctioning fee and pissing them off wouldn't be a great move from Hearn.

Re: WBA and sanctioning fees

Posted: 11 Oct 2015, 09:21
by handsofstone
expe wrote:
Parson Cross wrote:So why not just vacate now - BEFORE the fight ?
You know the answer - to con the public into thinking the fight on 24 October is something special zzzzzzzz
Keep the WBA happy too, they want their sanctioning fee and pissing them off wouldn't be a great move from Hearn.
I'd love if a promoter/manager or even a boxer with a lot of clout publicly boycotted the WBA,i havent much time for any of the ABC's but they are by far the biggest shower of wankers ive ever known

Re: WBA and sanctioning fees

Posted: 11 Oct 2015, 11:15
by milpool
handsofstone wrote: I'd love if a promoter/manager or even a boxer with a lot of clout publicly boycotted the WBA,i havent much time for any of the ABC's but they are by far the biggest shower of wankers ive ever known
I agree, but I sense that the promoters are all partly responsible for all these ridiculous titles appearing from nowhere. My question would be though, at what stage do they realise that they are just ruining boxing by having all these trinkets?

Re: WBA and sanctioning fees

Posted: 11 Oct 2015, 13:02
by craigjenkins05
I think they have done a deal with the WBA they will vacate and the December 12th fight against spike o Sullivan is for final eliminator with the winner of Jacobs v quilling having to fight them

Re: WBA and sanctioning fees

Posted: 11 Oct 2015, 13:06
by Andrew
craigjenkins05 wrote:I think they have done a deal with the WBA they will vacate and the December 12th fight against spike o Sullivan is for final eliminator with the winner of Jacobs v quilling having to fight them
That would make sense. Still mandatory for a bollocks title GGG is the champ and neither Quillin or Jacobs want any part of him.

Re: WBA and sanctioning fees

Posted: 12 Oct 2015, 13:58
by Parson Cross
So where would that leave Blanco ?