Franks letters to the BBBoC

Discussion in 'British Boxing Forum' started by HMSTempleGarden, May 12, 2012.


  1. HMSTempleGarden

    HMSTempleGarden Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,686
    8
    Jan 18, 2010
    Dear Mr Smith,


    I refer to the press release which you issued earlier this week in which you state that any member of the British Boxing Board of Control who participates in the Haye v. Chisora fight “will be deemed to have terminated” both his membership of your Board and his licence. As you know I am Dereck Chisora’s manager and even if I am not at the fight I will be ‘participating’ in accordance with your definition of this word in the press release.


    I write to make two complaints about your press release. The first is that there are no substantive grounds to revoke my licence and the second is that you have not properly complied with any procedural requirements.


    Substantive Grounds
    Under Rule 4.12 of your own Rules and Regulations, as a licence holder I can participate “(a) in or at a Promotion which is licensed by the BBBofC; or (b) in or at a Promotion organised by a Federation, Commission, Association or Controlling Authority affiliated to, or recognised by the BBBofC”. The Federation Luxembourgoise De Boxe is a Federation affiliated to and recognised by the Board; both are affiliated to the EBU. As that Federation is sanctioning the Haye v. Chisora fight, my participation is not a breach of your Rules.



    You have not communicated your complaint to me at all, but in the press statement your concern appears to be that a member who participates in the Haye v. Chisora fight would “bring the sport of boxing into disrepute”. As I say, were the Board to really consider that I was bringing the sport into disrepute then I would expect you to have set out the charges against me by letter and with a level of particularity.


    I cannot see how I can be bringing boxing into disrepute for the following reasons (which list is not exhaustive):


    * It cannot be because the fight is unlicensed, because it is licensed by a Federation older than the Board, affiliated to the EBU and which has the same medical provisions, testing, safety provisions and insurance as the Board;


    * It cannot be because David Haye is fighting and is not licensed by the Board. If this were the case, you would object to almost every fight taking place overseas. Indeed, I note that the Board has not complained that the WBA is bringing the sport into disrepute, despite that organisation licensing Mayweather’s fight even though he has a conviction for domestic violence;


    * It cannot be because Dereck Chisora is not licensed by the Board, for the reasons above. Also, if the Board did consider that Mr Chisora should not fight again, it would have banned him for life. Instead it withdrew his licence but invited him to apply for a licence with the Board or with another sanctioning body when he wished to do so;


    * It cannot be because of safety reasons. Not just because the Federation has the same procedures as the Board, but also because the Board took no sanction against Promoter Barry Hearn after he ignored the Board’s refusal to grant Julian Jackson a licence to fight in the UK against Herol Graham and staged the fight in Spain. Indeed, the Board supplied officials for that fight and gained financially. Further, whilst the Board has been found guilty of negligence (in relation to Michael Watson), the Federation has had no such decisions against it;


    *It cannot be because there is a fight sanctioned in the UK by the Luxembourg Federation. This is because the Board has licensed fights in other jurisdictions, as have many other Federations and Associations and because of the principle of free trade across Europe.


    Procedural Grounds
    If in fact you really did consider that I, a licensee, is guilty of misconduct because of my ‘participation’ in the Haye v. Chisora fight, then you need still to comply with Rule 25. The Board would need to send me a formal complaint and require me to answer it and attend before the Board. You have not done so.



    My Complaint
    My concern is that by issuing the threat contained in your press release you are trying to stop me from being involved in a legitimate and lawful fight governed by another Federation and to interfere with my freedom to work and to earn a living. I am worried that you have taken this decision not because you are really concerned about the fight (for the reasons I set out above) but because you are fearful that you will lose your monopoly in the UK.



    I require written confirmation that you will not seek to take away my licence if I remain Dereck Chisora’s manager. As you have catapulted this issue into the press, then I consider it is reasonable for me to seek your confirmation by close of business on Wednesday 16 May 2012. If I do not receive your confirmation then you will receive a formal complaint from my solicitors followed by proceedings (including injunctive relief should they consider it necessary and appropriate). Of course there may well be issues of costs and damages associated with your actions and I put you on notice that I will be seeking these also if so advised.


    I look forward to hearing from you.


    Kind Regards,

    Frank


    http://www.britishboxers.co.uk/2012...sh+Boxing+Website+-++www.britishboxers.co.uk)
     
  2. Michael300

    Michael300 Fighting back..... Full Member

    3,278
    1
    Feb 12, 2012
    Good points, well made:good
     
  3. Aint no stoppin

    Aint no stoppin Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,191
    937
    Dec 15, 2008
  4. Ilesey

    Ilesey ~ Full Member

    38,201
    2,600
    Jul 22, 2004
    ****ing awesome.
     
  5. Manning

    Manning Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,443
    1,024
    Mar 6, 2011
  6. Legend X

    Legend X Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    6,315
    664
    Mar 18, 2005
    He's coming out swinging.
    The BBBofC might well be forced to back down ..... but they shouldn't, not if they want to survive.

    It could be a lose-lose situation for the BBBofC.
    If they take Warran on and lose a legal battle, the costs could finish them.
    If they choose not to take the risk, they show themselves as a toothless and ineffective governing body, and they will lose their status.

    They need a solid case. I think they could have a decent case, but do they have the will and the quality of lawyer it would take to beat Warran ?

    This might be a vicious battle.
    Which is a relief, because Haye v Chisora will probably be a tame waltz.
     
  7. RichDam

    RichDam Active Member Full Member

    852
    0
    Apr 26, 2006
    Picking a fight he cannot win. Typical Frank.
     
  8. fatcity

    fatcity Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    17,931
    11
    Feb 26, 2005
    A warning for Frank.Be careful what you wish for.:deal
     
  9. GazOC

    GazOC Guest Star for Team Taff Full Member

    61,460
    38
    Jan 7, 2005
    At least a couple of times, that I can remember, that he's picked a legal fight with The Board he's kicked their arses.
     
  10. RichDam

    RichDam Active Member Full Member

    852
    0
    Apr 26, 2006

    At the end of the day he still has to work with them. Stupid move for me.
     
  11. GazOC

    GazOC Guest Star for Team Taff Full Member

    61,460
    38
    Jan 7, 2005
    Like I say, he's done this sort of thing at least twice before, won and was still working with them afterwards.
     
  12. Michael300

    Michael300 Fighting back..... Full Member

    3,278
    1
    Feb 12, 2012
    They all need to start acting like professionals here!

    They need to get around a table a discuss damage limitation, the BBBC are in a real danger of backing themselves in to a corner here, and likewise Frank is in danger of getting what he wants in the short term but having potential long term problems.

    Whilst all this is fascinating for an observer, it really isn't good for the sports image in this country.

    Come on guys come to some sort of 'arrangement'......:deal
     
  13. dftaylor

    dftaylor Writer, fanatic Full Member

    20,730
    1
    May 7, 2010
    I see you're from the Rob Palmer school of idiocy. That's cool, we don't judge.

    At the end of the day, the board needs FW more than he needs them. THEY ****ed up and now they're trying to punish him. It's basic bully boy tactics but, unlike the Board, he's done his research.

    They'll back down or be sued into oblivion. The fact they want to punish those who defy them simply illustrates what corrupt shitbags they are.
     
  14. happydrinks

    happydrinks directfraction.storenvy.com Full Member

    5,167
    0
    Sep 14, 2009
    Can't believe the board are acting in such a way that I have literally taken the side of Frank on something. A new low.
     
  15. HOF

    HOF Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,873
    0
    Feb 10, 2008
    The Board have indeed backed themselves into a corner but FW would not have gambled his future on one fight just to save his tv channel. It is the Board who may be irrevocably damaged by this though. As soon as they issued an indeterminate restriction on a fighter based on moral grounds, rather than a fine or other penalty, then the inherent subjectivity in that action always put them on the back foot. In doing so they were going up against present day European trade law and articles of their own constitution if they believed they could prevent someone earning a living based on two fellas having a scuffle at a press conference.

    Robert Smith, in bowing to the ridiculous faux moral outrage around the original incident, has seemingly unwittingly (although how he didn't see this coming is baffling) brought the Board's underlying lack of jurisdictional clout out into the open. It is now their future in the sport in this country that is in more peril than that of anyone involved the fight. And it's a result of their own short sightedness.