Franks letters to the BBBoC

How is it a restriction of trade ?
If boxers are free to fight unlicensed or with licenses from other organisations ?

 

Because it would depend on how quick they would be to get licences from the other bodies, and since the majority of them will base themselves in the UK, this might restrict them from appearing on other promoter's shows.

Seriously, are you just being contrary? The Board are being massive wankers here.

 

But they don't need licenses at all.

Contracts restrict fighters from fighting on other promoters shows all the time, so I don't understand that point.
No one says that's against business law, or unethical, or a legal restriction of trade.

No.
The board are acting just as they always have done.

It's VERY simple :

1. Chisora is currently unlicensed by the BBBofC because he's in some sort of disciplinary process, for 'unacceptable' behaviour, he's currently considered 'unfit' to hold a license. They will not sanction him at the moment. They will not approve the sanctioning of him within this shores by anyone else, at the moment.

2. Anyone practically supporting a Dereck Chisora main event at the moment is positively working against the BBBofC's authority, obviously.

Therefore, the board is prohibiting its own licence holders from supporting the event.
Of course, they can all say "to hell with the BBBofC license, we don't need that." ..... and that's fine. :good

But I don't understand why people are arguing that they should have their cake and eat it too.
People seem to be saying that the BBBofC license-holders should be allowed to work against the board's authority in supporting a 'unapproved' main event, but at the same time should be protected by the BBBofC and the prestige of the board's license.

It's childish, it's like little kids saying they hate their parents and are going to run away but they cry if they get kicked out of the house.

"**** you BBBofC ! .... but please may I keep your license ?"

 

No they want to earn money. And what's the point of having cake if you can't eat it?

A contract is legal protection for both parties, and fighters often end up on other promoters' cards. The board is restricting trade out of spite. It's not childish to want to feature on a huge card in front of thousands if potential fans. It's certainly not childish to want to make sure you have a career after in the jurisdiction you live in.

The only reason this happened is the stupid way the board handled Chisora's disciplinary. They didn't ban him and now are complaining he kept after a career and that his manager helped.

 

The BBBoC is essentially a private members organisation, so 'banning' people from fighting on their administered shows isnt really restraint of trade because as Frank has been so keen to point out, licenses from other EBU jurisdictions are available.

The fighters / people invovled cant really say well BBBoC doesnt apply here, but it does here. You either accept it as the power that is (as flawed currently as that may be) or dont.

The boards position is pretty petty, but what other measures can they take?

Just lay down whilst this happens? Everyone involved needs to figure out a route out of this that enables everyone to save some face.

 

You are a ****ing Idiot, A BBBoC license is not a contract, as stated above in another post, (its a private members club) :good

 

Except that my reference to a contract had nothing to do with ny point about the board, ****wit

 

What are you on about then?

You have been spouting totally uninformed drivel throughout the whole of this thread.

The Board has every right to strip any person who breaks its rules of their licence/s. It is a condition of acquiring a licence given by the Board that a party undertakes to obey the Board's rules.

It may well be that the Board in its wisdom determines at the end of the day to only strip the instigators and primary movers of this farce of their licences, we will have to wait and see.

As I have stated earlier, I have no doubt that most boxing fans would like to see the "grudge match", and lets face it that's what it is; not a demonstration of two excellent boxers exhibiting their skills, take place. However, Allegedly could have acted in a less confrontational manner, unless he has a hidden agenda or is desparate to make quick money.

Try to separate in your thinking the two facets, 1, we would all like to see this scrap and, 2, the unacceptable way in which it has been rushed into existance within the U.K. jurisdiction.

If you are happy to see 2, 3, 4 or more Boxing Boards existing in this country with multiple English and British titles being fought for then so be it, carry on with your pathetic argument.

My view is that most right minded people would prefer the sport to be efficiently organised by one competent governing body, which it is true has faults which urgently need addressing but which, on the whole does a pretty decent job.

 

Thats the whole point though, isn't it? Who has broken what rules?

And theres your problem....its a trait that the board have singularly failed to demonstrate in this matter.

 

Please read the whole thread, in particular my earlier post.

Any boxer holding a BBBoC licence must have permission from the BBBoC to take part in any fight either within or outside the the jurisdiction of the U.K. In the event that a boxer takes part in any fight which is not sanctioned by the BBBoC without permission from the Board, they are in breach of the Board's Rules and Regulations.

What is difficult to understand about that?

Most of the people posting on this thread have never read the Rules and Regulations of the Board and are reminiscent of the typical "barrack room lawyer" found in most pubs, merely stating what they think that the law is.

My advice to them is, go away, read the Board's Rules and Regulations and understand them. Then, and only then, come on here and post.

 

You pompous tosser. The board has threatened to revoke the licence for taking part because they sure as **** aren't going to approve it. Therefore, constructive dismissal.

 

I can see that you're frustrated with what you perceive to be is people's lack of understanding of the rules and regulations, but I think the point is this:

On what legimate grounds could the board refuse to grant the necessary permission?

This is the whole point,they have to give a reason, what legitimate one is it?

 

Why do you always find it necessary to call people names?

You cannot have a Cause of Action for constructive dismissal against anyone but your employer. Boxers are not employed by the BBBoC and therefore, as usual, you are talking through your rear end.

No Cause of Action lies. Check the "bible", Chitty on Contracts.

 

Who are you to call a professional fighter a coward?

 

I'm using it as an example. The board have every right to pursue Chisora and Frank if they feel they're in breach of the rules. However, they have no right to punish fighter's for wanting to take part on the card, which is what they are effectively doing.

Your licence will be revoked, you will be unable to fight on cards we sanction in future. And there is no legitimate reason to refuse them other than to derail the Haye-Chisora card.

It's utter garbage from an organisation who consistently show no standards of quality.