I was surprised to say the least at the Board’s press statement dated 9th
May 2012 in relation to the Haye v Chisora fight at West Ham and
particularly the references to the Federation Luxembourgeoise de Boxe. I
am also concerned at the threats made to our members and other licence
holders of the Board of Control to withdraw their licences if they
participate in the show.
Our Association has worked alongside the BBB of C for 13 years. Generally
speaking this has been a good working relationship and we see no reason
for this to change if we all genuinely share a passion for the betterment
of British Boxing. However, over the last few years certain actions taken
by the Board have alienated license holders and we have no effective vote
on these decisions. The only people who can vote andhave a say in how the
Board is run are the Area Council Officers. However, these Officers are
not voted in by the licence holders but are appointed by the Board and the
Board itself appoints its own directors. Therefore, there is no-one who
can vote on any issues at all who has any duty to represent the licence
holders and we feel we have no voice.
Whilst we raised these concerns with you, nothing happened and you refused
to even discuss them. This culminated last year with a protest by license
holders at the Company’s AGM. As a result of which the AGM was suspended
with the Board agreeing to meet with a delegation of license holders to
discuss the way forward. The delegation (democratically elected) met with
you in Birmingham. We were told that you would listen to what we had to
say but would make no changes; there was little point in us meeting.
Since our meeting in Birmingham, there have been further matters which
caused us concern. Firstly Jane Couch’s licenses were taken away from her
in what seemed to us to be a personal dispute with her and the Chairman
rather than a matter which should have concerned the Board. This dispute
exposed worrying concerns about Mr Giles before the Board stepped down
having spent time and money fighting the dispute. Secondly, a complaint
was made by Mr Frank Warren over the lack of BBB of C support of Dereck
Chisora when he fought in Germany.
He alleged that had the Chairman been more pro-active then the issues in
Germany (including checking the security arrangements) could have been
avoided. I was not present in Germany and so do not know what happened,
but whoever was responsible, it does show that the Board and the Chairman
have lost the support of various licensees. I speculate, but this could be
because the Chairman has other loyalties which could cause licence holders
to question his full support. He is the Vice Chairman of the EBU and holds
a prominent position with the WBC.
After our meeting in Birmingham, the members of our Association together
with other licence holders entered into discussions with the Federation
Luxembourgeoise de Boxe. The Federation has been in existence in its
present form since inception in 1922. It is affiliated to the EBU, WBA,
WBO, IBF and WBC and it therefore is recognised by the BBBofC. Indeed the
BBBofC have authorised boxers to fight in tournaments regulated by the
Federation on many occasions in the past. It could not do otherwise
without being in breach of its own Rules. Less than a month ago the
Federation regulated and staged a show in Germany with the full support of
the German Federation who permitted its own licence holders to take part.
We were attracted to the Luxembourg Federation because its safety record
is second to none and it has personal injury insurance in place and strict
procedures for protecting the safety of boxers. However,coupled with that,
it is run by its members for its members. Managers, promoters and trainers
are allowed to vote at the Company’s AGM and therefore have a real say as
to how boxing is run. Whilst the Federation regulates the safety of
boxing, it confines this to licensing, ringside supervision and the
protection of the boxers in the ring, allowing the members freedom in
other areas. Therefore we entered into an agreement so that the
Association is now the Federation’s representative in the UK and has been
since March 12th 2012. I informed you of this and I informed you of the
insurance and safety provisions when we met. This makes press release all
the more surprising as I had been completely open with you as to what we
were doing, the reasons why and the protection which would be afforded to
the boxers under the Federation.
Moving onto the licensing of Haye v Chisora. Neither boxer is on the
banned / suspension list. Chisora was sanctioned by your own body and
having heard the evidence you decided to withdraw his licence rather than
ban him. It is worth noting that this was under enormous pressure and
scrutiny of the press. We are surprised that you question whether these
boxers should be licensed as they are both fit and well to fight, neither
have a criminal conviction and neither have been banned by yours or any
other sanctioning body. This is especially so when there has been not a
squeak out of the Board over Mayweather, Tyson, Scott Welch, Danny
Williams and currently Scott Dixon to name but a few.
From the perspective of our Association, I am concerned about your attempt
to intimidate your own members into not taking part. You do this in two
ways. First, you claim that you will de-licence any member who takes part
in the fight. This is unlawful and a breach of your own Rules. Secondly
you seek to limit the insurance for boxers who are licensed by the BBBofC
and would ordinarily have the benefit of insurance even if they fight
under a different sanctioning body. This, in particular, is an
extraordinary move for the BBBofC to seek to limit its own boxers’
insurance when they have paid license fees and taxes for the benefit of
this insurance. I seek from you the confirmation of your insurers of their
position – presumably you got this before issuing the press release and so
can send it to me by
return.
On behalf of our Association and the Federation, we require from you
agreement that you will not seek to interfere with the fight and show. If
this is not forthcoming by close of business on Friday 18th May 2012 then
the following will happen:
1) The membership of the Professional Boxing Promoters Association will
move for a vote of no-confidence in the Board; and
2) The Federation of Luxembourg will consult its lawyers to start
proceedings for restraint of trade that is if these proceedings have not
by then been brought by another individual or company in the meantime.
I look forward to hearing from you and if you wish to meet and discuss
matters, do let me know.
Yours sincerely
Bruce Baker
Chairman
Professional Boxing Promoters Association
Representatives Federation Luxembourgeoise de Boxe
May 2012 in relation to the Haye v Chisora fight at West Ham and
particularly the references to the Federation Luxembourgeoise de Boxe. I
am also concerned at the threats made to our members and other licence
holders of the Board of Control to withdraw their licences if they
participate in the show.
Our Association has worked alongside the BBB of C for 13 years. Generally
speaking this has been a good working relationship and we see no reason
for this to change if we all genuinely share a passion for the betterment
of British Boxing. However, over the last few years certain actions taken
by the Board have alienated license holders and we have no effective vote
on these decisions. The only people who can vote andhave a say in how the
Board is run are the Area Council Officers. However, these Officers are
not voted in by the licence holders but are appointed by the Board and the
Board itself appoints its own directors. Therefore, there is no-one who
can vote on any issues at all who has any duty to represent the licence
holders and we feel we have no voice.
Whilst we raised these concerns with you, nothing happened and you refused
to even discuss them. This culminated last year with a protest by license
holders at the Company’s AGM. As a result of which the AGM was suspended
with the Board agreeing to meet with a delegation of license holders to
discuss the way forward. The delegation (democratically elected) met with
you in Birmingham. We were told that you would listen to what we had to
say but would make no changes; there was little point in us meeting.
Since our meeting in Birmingham, there have been further matters which
caused us concern. Firstly Jane Couch’s licenses were taken away from her
in what seemed to us to be a personal dispute with her and the Chairman
rather than a matter which should have concerned the Board. This dispute
exposed worrying concerns about Mr Giles before the Board stepped down
having spent time and money fighting the dispute. Secondly, a complaint
was made by Mr Frank Warren over the lack of BBB of C support of Dereck
Chisora when he fought in Germany.
He alleged that had the Chairman been more pro-active then the issues in
Germany (including checking the security arrangements) could have been
avoided. I was not present in Germany and so do not know what happened,
but whoever was responsible, it does show that the Board and the Chairman
have lost the support of various licensees. I speculate, but this could be
because the Chairman has other loyalties which could cause licence holders
to question his full support. He is the Vice Chairman of the EBU and holds
a prominent position with the WBC.
After our meeting in Birmingham, the members of our Association together
with other licence holders entered into discussions with the Federation
Luxembourgeoise de Boxe. The Federation has been in existence in its
present form since inception in 1922. It is affiliated to the EBU, WBA,
WBO, IBF and WBC and it therefore is recognised by the BBBofC. Indeed the
BBBofC have authorised boxers to fight in tournaments regulated by the
Federation on many occasions in the past. It could not do otherwise
without being in breach of its own Rules. Less than a month ago the
Federation regulated and staged a show in Germany with the full support of
the German Federation who permitted its own licence holders to take part.
We were attracted to the Luxembourg Federation because its safety record
is second to none and it has personal injury insurance in place and strict
procedures for protecting the safety of boxers. However,coupled with that,
it is run by its members for its members. Managers, promoters and trainers
are allowed to vote at the Company’s AGM and therefore have a real say as
to how boxing is run. Whilst the Federation regulates the safety of
boxing, it confines this to licensing, ringside supervision and the
protection of the boxers in the ring, allowing the members freedom in
other areas. Therefore we entered into an agreement so that the
Association is now the Federation’s representative in the UK and has been
since March 12th 2012. I informed you of this and I informed you of the
insurance and safety provisions when we met. This makes press release all
the more surprising as I had been completely open with you as to what we
were doing, the reasons why and the protection which would be afforded to
the boxers under the Federation.
Moving onto the licensing of Haye v Chisora. Neither boxer is on the
banned / suspension list. Chisora was sanctioned by your own body and
having heard the evidence you decided to withdraw his licence rather than
ban him. It is worth noting that this was under enormous pressure and
scrutiny of the press. We are surprised that you question whether these
boxers should be licensed as they are both fit and well to fight, neither
have a criminal conviction and neither have been banned by yours or any
other sanctioning body. This is especially so when there has been not a
squeak out of the Board over Mayweather, Tyson, Scott Welch, Danny
Williams and currently Scott Dixon to name but a few.
From the perspective of our Association, I am concerned about your attempt
to intimidate your own members into not taking part. You do this in two
ways. First, you claim that you will de-licence any member who takes part
in the fight. This is unlawful and a breach of your own Rules. Secondly
you seek to limit the insurance for boxers who are licensed by the BBBofC
and would ordinarily have the benefit of insurance even if they fight
under a different sanctioning body. This, in particular, is an
extraordinary move for the BBBofC to seek to limit its own boxers’
insurance when they have paid license fees and taxes for the benefit of
this insurance. I seek from you the confirmation of your insurers of their
position – presumably you got this before issuing the press release and so
can send it to me by
return.
On behalf of our Association and the Federation, we require from you
agreement that you will not seek to interfere with the fight and show. If
this is not forthcoming by close of business on Friday 18th May 2012 then
the following will happen:
1) The membership of the Professional Boxing Promoters Association will
move for a vote of no-confidence in the Board; and
2) The Federation of Luxembourg will consult its lawyers to start
proceedings for restraint of trade that is if these proceedings have not
by then been brought by another individual or company in the meantime.
I look forward to hearing from you and if you wish to meet and discuss
matters, do let me know.
Yours sincerely
Bruce Baker
Chairman
Professional Boxing Promoters Association
Representatives Federation Luxembourgeoise de Boxe
No comments:
Post a Comment