Franks letters to the BBBoC

Constructive dismissal from what though Franics?

 

Francis*

 

A very reasonable question.

It could be argued that the Board does not have to give a reason but they do in fact state why they cannot and will not sanction this contest in the second paragraph of their statement, to quote:

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

:goodI appreciate you taking the time to explain, it actually does make a bit more sense now!

What a mess this whole situation is! I'm not taking any sides really, I can see arguments from both viewpoints, I am looking forward to the fight, but I'm not comfortable with the circumstances surrounding it.

One thing is for certain, the level of debate it has caused is fascinating! :bbb

 

I am with you 100%.

I make no secret of the fact that I would love to see this fight even if it isn't between the 2 best heavyweights in the world. But, the way that Bunny has handled this, particularly as he said he would never promote it, is extremely bad for the sport as a whole which will go on long after Haye and Chisora are gone and forgotten, but at what price?

Bunny couldn't be bothered to wait a few months to see whether things could be sorted out regarding Haye and Chisora with the Board.

Money rules, I guess.

 

Point taken.

However, if a car has no brakes will you drive it because the rest of the car is alright? If you buy a chicken and part of it is clearly rotting away, will you cook it and eat what appears to be the good bit?

I don't think that you would.

The main event and the one which Bunny wants in order to make him money is Haye v Chisora. The Board refuse to recognise or sanction this fight, which is what the Upton Park event is all about. They cannot sanction half of the contest and ignore the other just as you wouldn't drive the car or eat the chicken. The whole event is either sanctioned by the Board or none of it is sanctioned, there are no half measures and common sense dictates that this has to be the case.

If boxers are satisfied that the Luxemburg authority will sanction regular boxing events in this country such that they can earn a living, then fine, sign up with Luxemberg.

If I was still boxing I would be quite prepared to not take part in a one off event to put money in a Promoter's pocket, rather than risk never fighting again in my home country unless I could be certain that an alternative Boxing Board of Control would sanction regular fights in the U.K.

Therefore the bottom line is, if a boxer fights in an event not sanctioned by the BBBoC WITHOUT THE BBBoC's permission they are in breach of the rules which they undertook to observe when granted a licence to box. If there are consequences you have only yourself to blame.

I don't think that I can state the situation clearer than that.

 

i can't really argue with any of that?

 

No one is asking them to "sanction the contest". They are just being asked to stop threatening people that take part.

If the BBBofC said Chisora is free to apply elsewhere for a license, and Chisora then does it, where is the justification for threats?

 

How about you have a car park full of cars, all insured by Aviva but one is insured by CrapCo which has recently gone bust, do you consider all of the cars in the car park to be uninsured just because one is? Upon leaving the car park should all cars be seized?

If you have a whole pen of chickens and one dies due to malnutrition but all the others are fine do you htrow them all away?

Or how about Tesco sell chickens from particular supplier, but find a better deal elsewhere from a different supplier, when that deal expires should the supplier punish Tesco for going elsewhere by refusing to sell to them, despite it being perfectly reasonable and legal to do so?

 

Frank W.:

The Boxing Board of Control had a hearing, it was their decision not to ban Dereck Chisora; it was their decision to say to me, and to say to Dereck Chisora, and in front of his barrister, "If you wish to take a license up with another organization, you can do that".

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF4gTiGPXDI"][/ame]

If they tell Chisora he is free to do something, and he then does it, is it really good behaviour on the part of the BBBofC if they then start bullying and threatening people?

 

Sums it up for me. And should they punish others for it?

 

The Board stated that in their opinion Dereck was not a fit and proper person to hold a boxing licence. Other organisations who licence boxers to fight and even people who post on this forum may disagree with the Board, as is their right. However, the Board having made the decision which they did, rightly or wrongly in other peoples opinion, have no choice but to refuse to recognise or sanction a fight or event in which a boxer who they believe is not a fit and proper person to hold a license is fighting.

Any boxer or other licence holder such as manager, trainer etc. who wishes to take part in that event can apply to the Board for permission to take part. However, if the Board refuses to grant permission and the boxer, manager or other official goes against the Board's ruling then they must be prepared to accept that the Board can take action for breach of their rules. Rules which the licensee undertook to observe in order to be given a licence.

Any other course of action, or inaction, would be opening the flood gates to anyone who wished to challenge the authority of the Board to govern the sport in this country. It would be a free for all with the Rules and Regulations of the Board being ignored as ineffective.

Those are the facts and the law.

It may appear harsh to some people but lay the blame where it belongs the people who are looking to make millions out of this fight. It makes one wonder whether or not the organisors are in the least bit concerned about the welfare of the undercard other than as padding to the main event. It begs the question is this event about anything more than quick money and has anyone considered whether this is good for the future of the sport of boxing in the U.K.

Had common sense prevailed and Dereck's appeal been dealt with and had Haye applied for a licence things may have been different some 3 to 6 months down the line.

Yes we all want to see this fight, me included. Even if it were to be delayed until early next year, it would still be a fight everyone would want to see.

It makes one wonder if one or more people are desparate to make as much as possible as quickly as possible and to hell with the consequences.

 

If the board decide Chisora was not fit and proper to hold a boxing license why did they not ban him then? Because now they have unknowingly contradicted themselves and shot themselves in the foot. They left it all in the air, pathetic.

 

You have a good point there.

I have no idea why they failed to impose a ban and I have to admit it seems ridiculous to me too.

I was not present at the hearing like almost all the readers and posters on this forum nor is anyone privy to the discussions which took place in the tribunal who made that rather strange decision. Perhaps someone can ask the Board as to why they made that decision rather than imposing a ban either for a fixed period or indefinately,subject to appeal of course.

The situation that we now face is ridiculous and should never have happened, however, this is what we are stuck with and the Board, in my opinion, have acted in the only way that they could given the ridiculous position in which they put themselves and in all the circumstances.

It is arguable that they should never have put themselves in this position and I for one agree with that sentiment, but there may be an explanation but to date no member of the Board has come forward to give one. Shame really.

 

****IN RIGHT IT DOES & **** ALL WRONG WITH THATdeal:deal

Your tad moralistic & nieve sentiment has no place in the modern commercial world of boxing/sport or any other commercial enterprise & never has & is in all reality a mental handicapp.

Why is this fight bad for boxing???? It's the best thing thats happended in YEARS!!!! This is the entertainment industry!!! These men are proffesional prize fighters who fight for PAY!!!! It's their living!!! It's what they DO!!..This ai'nt the AM'S!! But the way the BBBc has behaved you'd think it was & thats why they should be NUKED:deal

This is no different too your local cinema refusing to show a snuff movie due too it's content. But if another movie house shows it & makes a pile of ££££ then yer can't squeal the house down just because yer turned it down can yer. It's called freedom of action for the seller & freedom of choice for the consumer. The BBBc don't want it! Then let someone else have it who'll accomadate the requests of the boxing masses.

Once this fights done & dusted we just move onto the next one..simples:yep