# Does anyone know about the new UKBFF ruling???



## willsey4 (Apr 21, 2008)

Right,

If anyone was at the Hercules show yesterday they might remember what Scott said about the new rule the UKBFF have introduced.

Now what I read the rule as was if you qualify for the nationals within the UKBFF then you are not allowed to compete with any other federation i.e. Nabba.

A few of us sat down in the pub next door and discussed this and could not make sense of it and everyone had different opinions as to what the rule was:

- some thought if you competed within Nabba you could then not compete with the UKBFF

- some thought if you qualified for the nationals then you could not compete with Nabba or you lose your qualification

etc

I am intrested to know what the exact ruling is as my plan is to compete within a Nabba first timers class and then move on to the UKBFF Inters over 90kg.

Now I am not sure if this is possible????


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

the rule is (i believe) is that if you qualify for the UKBFF Finals then you cannot compete at any other federation show if you do then you will lose your invite to the UKBFF finals and then would need to re-qualify......

i think this is fairer than saying you cannot compete in another federation no matter what....


----------



## DB (Oct 31, 2003)

I read it the same way as Pscarb


----------



## willsey4 (Apr 21, 2008)

Pscarb said:


> the rule is (i believe) is that if you qualify for the UKBFF Finals then you cannot compete at any other federation show if you do then you will lose your invite to the UKBFF finals and then would need to re-qualify......
> 
> i think this is fairer than saying you cannot compete in another federation no matter what....


Thats what I thought (and was hoping)!

I was worried it would effect my plans as from your recommendations I am hoping to do the first timers Nabba before moving to UKBFF

Thanks


----------



## MissBC (Apr 29, 2008)

whats up with this new challenge class?????


----------



## DB (Oct 31, 2003)

MissBC said:


> whats up with this new challenge class?????


Yeah that's a lame idea imo

shows have enough classes and the days are already long enough!


----------



## Greyphantom (Oct 23, 2003)

MissBC said:


> whats up with this new challenge class?????


Thats the new class where all the winners from the shows get to compete is it not??



DB said:


> Yeah that's a lame idea imo
> 
> shows have enough classes and the days are already long enough!


I agree... with all the different classes and then the overall in the show I think thats enough, it certainly makes for a long day... especially when you have to stand cos some wide boy is taking up nearly a row of seats on his own...


----------



## willsey4 (Apr 21, 2008)

MissBC said:


> whats up with this new challenge class?????


I understand the concept of it but dont think it will take off.

Its so people for example dont win their class and get an invite to the nationals then compete in a qualifier next week, win their class again and deny someone else getting an invite.

However I dont think theri will be too many people in this position. I would of thought it was only for shows that are back to back.

Sorry I ddint get a chance to say high to you and Baz yesterday. I saw you at the finals aswell but didnt say hight then either!


----------



## staffy (May 25, 2005)

the ruling is now if you qualified for or competed in the britsh and u do any other fed after that u will be banned for 2 yrs!!


----------



## Khaos1436114653 (Aug 28, 2009)

yeah i challenge DB to "side chest" pose lol, and i challenge Jem to "rear of the year"


----------



## Beklet (May 13, 2005)

Greyphantom said:


> Thats the new class where all the winners from the shows get to compete is it not??
> 
> I agree... with all the different classes and then the overall in the show I think thats enough, it certainly makes for a long day... *especially when you have to stand cos some wide boy is taking up nearly a row of seats on his own.*..


Yeah but at least when they buggered off it meant more seats for us....... :lol: :lol: :lol:

(sorry DB)


----------



## Khaos1436114653 (Aug 28, 2009)

staffy said:


> the ruling is now if you qualified for or competed in the britsh and u do any other fed after that u will be banned for 2 yrs!!


ffs thats a bit strong, anyone would think you got positive on a roids test at the olympic games:confused1:


----------



## MissBC (Apr 29, 2008)

Khaos said:


> yeah i challenge DB to "side chest" pose lol, and i challenge Jem to "rear of the year"


hahahaha dont even try, his side chest is AWESOME hahahaha


----------



## MissBC (Apr 29, 2008)

Greyphantom said:


> I agree... with all the different classes and then the overall in the show I think thats enough, it certainly makes for a long day... especially when you have to stand cos some wide boy is taking up nearly a row of seats on his own...


hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha yea fatty had 2 seats hehehehe

but best than him fitting on one!! NOW that would be shocking :lol: :lol:


----------



## MissBC (Apr 29, 2008)

DB said:


> Yeah that's a lame idea imo
> 
> shows have enough classes and the days are already long enough!


yea after sitting through 2 weekends of bodybuiling i think any longer and i would :cursing: :cursing: :cursing: NO MORE CLASSES


----------



## Greyphantom (Oct 23, 2003)

MissBC said:


> hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha yea fatty had 2 seats hehehehe
> 
> but best than him fitting on one!! NOW that would be shocking :lol: :lol:


hehehe... yeah I think it would have buckled under his weight... I know a couple of us were a bit wary when we sat in them... would have been funny though to see them break... lol... :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Khaos1436114653 (Aug 28, 2009)

MissBC said:


> hahahaha dont even try, his side chest is AWESOME hahahaha


i can't disagree there:thumb:, thats why i'm getting huge again,but i'v got ten years on him so i probably be a senior soon:lol:


----------



## Ak_88 (Nov 9, 2008)

At least he makes for an easy spitball target :lol:


----------



## Greyphantom (Oct 23, 2003)

Ak_88 said:


> At least he makes for an easy spitball target :lol:


LMAO... indeed he does... :thumb:


----------



## DB (Oct 31, 2003)

oh who needs enemies when I got a bunch of cnuts like you on my case all the time


----------



## Greyphantom (Oct 23, 2003)

DB said:


> oh who needs enemies when I got a bunch of cnuts like you on my case all the time


You know we loves ya DB... besides you didnt even give me any reach around...


----------



## MissBC (Apr 29, 2008)

Greyphantom said:


> You know we loves ya DB... besides you didnt even give me any reach around...


good... any kind of his reach around is reserved for me only :thumb:


----------



## Ex-SRD (Sep 9, 2008)

Just to clarify:

The rules is if you qualify for the UKBFF Finals from any qualifier, then compete in a show with another federation, then you will lose your place in the Finals and will not be allowed to compete with the UKBFF for 2 years.

The reason for this is that the UKBFF are asking for loyalty. They are putting more money into their athletes this year and are trying to push things forward.

If anyone has any queries for them, please email me on [email protected] and I will pass them on or (better still) phone the UKBFF office


----------



## Greyphantom (Oct 23, 2003)

MissBC said:


> good... any kind of his reach around is reserved for me only :thumb:


Yes ma'am...


----------



## Greyphantom (Oct 23, 2003)

Ex-SRD said:


> Just to clarify:
> 
> The rules is if you qualify for the UKBFF Finals from any qualifier, then compete in a show with another federation, then you will lose your place in the Finals and will not be allowed to compete with the UKBFF for 2 years.
> 
> ...


We were talking about this yesterday as well mate and one thought we had was that if the athlete pays the fees and dues to join the fed and to enter the comp then as long as their fees are kept up why should it matter... I mean if someone wants to belong to 3 clubs and pay the dues to all three then doesnt that cover the costs and loyalty somewhat... or is it due to the fact that they want to corner more of the bbing market when it comes to spectators bums on seats and so forth...?


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

Ex-SRD said:


> Just to clarify:
> 
> The rules is if you qualify for the UKBFF Finals from any qualifier, then compete in a show with another federation, then you will lose your place in the Finals and will not be allowed to compete with the UKBFF for 2 years.
> 
> ...


I think it will just mean that more people do the later qualifiers.

For example Paul Smiths show is in April so those wanting to do NABBA will do the shows after the NABBA Britain and this will detriment any shows before then.

For example if I did the Portsmouth then did the NABBA West I'd be banned for 2 years but if I did say the NABBA West, Britain and then UKBFF Gravesend this would allow me to compete in the UKBFF Brits.

Not very well thought out and more detriment to the promotors of early shows than anything else.

Also keeps athletes out of the shows which isnt good for promoting bodybuilding in the UK.

Sure there are maybe 5 people that will go to the Arnold each year but in a show you have normally 30-40 competitors.

Its only a small minority of athletes that will ever end up going to the Arnold or making the top 10 at the brits so those people who just like to compete will end up being banned from the UKBFF probably for life and therefore reduce the competitive pool of athletes.

Not very well thought out TBH. Yeah make them qualify again but banning them? draconian in the extreme.

Bet I dont place at any UKBFF show next year now. :lol:


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

Ex-SRD said:


> Just to clarify:
> 
> The rules is if you qualify for the UKBFF Finals from any qualifier, then compete in a show with another federation, then you will lose your place in the Finals and will not be allowed to compete with the UKBFF for 2 years.
> 
> ...


the way the ruling was before ie if you qualify for brits and then compete with another fed you lose your qualification was reasonable tho not perfect,this new rule is utterly pathetic and yet another example of them strangling the sport.

To say their reasoning is asking for loyalty due to cash they are putting into the sport is so weak its laughable,its bullying,no question.

If they want to ask for loyalty then they should be giving incentives to the athletes,start giving out cash prizes,or something along those lines.

Also for the likes of us north of the border,there are only 3 shows in our season,one is an independant,one is NABBA and the other is UKBFF,i'm sorry but as an athlete who has sacrificed his time,money,social life and everything else prepping entails then i feel i am entitled to as much showtime as possible and not have some overbearing organisation telling me who i can and can't compete with.


----------



## Khaos1436114653 (Aug 28, 2009)

it's like the UKFBB think they are the IFBB, next there will be fines, the UKFBB need to promote Bodybuilding for all, thats what the Weider idea was and is


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Ex-SRD said:


> Just to clarify:
> 
> The rules is if you qualify for the UKBFF Finals from any qualifier, then compete in a show with another federation, then you will lose your place in the Finals and will not be allowed to compete with the UKBFF for 2 years.
> 
> ...


i retract what i said in my last post....this is ridiculous....i can understand that if you win/qualify for the finals then you lose your invite if you compete elsewhere but to get a ban for 2yrs is unbelievable......

yes the UKBFF are putting money into taking athletes to the international shows but do the UKBFF lose money by an athlete competing in another federation?? and doesn't each athlete pay a joining fee if the athlete is banned do the UKBFF return this money or part of to the athlete??

plus the team that go to say the Arnold is small considering how many compete in the UKBFF because of this i think it is harsh to ban guys who many never get to go to the Arnold.....

NABBA/WABBA and NAC take athletes to international shows yet non of these feds ban their athletes from competing in other federations.....

i really thought the UKBFF was changing for the good of the athlete but yet again they have made a rule that goes against the athlete.....


----------



## supercell (Aug 23, 2005)

This is how it works in other countries too. This year they are/have sending/sent athletes to the Worlds, Europeans and then another 7 athletes to the Arnolds. If you think with flights, accomodation, entry fees, sanction fees etc this will be approx £1500 per person. I think its fair to ask for some loyalty.

As Scott said last night at the Hercules show, there is only one route to the top in our sport and that's with the IFBB. Whether that's everyone's opinion is open for debate as not everyone is going to want or even going to ever be Mr O or indeed a pro.

The facts are that the UKBFF is now bigger than ever with more competitors than ever so although people moan about rulings, it seems that people are willing to abide by the rules even though it may be through gritted teeth from some.

I have competed with NABBA, WABBA, INDEPENDENT and UKBFF/IFBB and although I enjoyed competing with the other feds, I knew to follow my dream it had to be with the UKBFF/IFBB.

Everyone has different aspirations and goals in this sport and that is why we have so much choice in this country. And that is exactly what it is, CHOICE. If you choose to compete with the UKBFF then you have to abide with their rules. If you dont then you have to take the consequences or stick to NABBA, NAC, WABBA etc.

The UKBFF is going through MASSIVE changes right now and this costs a huge amount of money. This investment needs loyalty from competitors otherwise there will always be people that take advantage of the system.

REMEMBER IF YOU DONT LIKE THE HEAT GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN OR DONT GO IN THERE TO START WITH!

J


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

Pscarb said:


> i retract what i said in my last post....this is ridiculous....i can understand that if you win/qualify for the finals then you lose your invite if you compete elsewhere but to get a ban for 2yrs is unbelievable......
> 
> yes the UKBFF are putting money into taking athletes to the international shows but do the UKBFF lose money by an athlete competing in another federation?? and doesn't each athlete pay a joining fee if the athlete is banned do the UKBFF return this money or part of to the athlete??
> 
> ...


Great post Paul.

Im in a similar vain to Brian. I do this recreationally really if I must be pigeonholed, a Britain qualification is useless to me anyway since I simply cannot afford it and everything it entails, and am also realistic enough to know my place in that I wouldnt be much more than a line filler.

So, if I do Nabba Scotland, then week later do UKBFF Scottish, then say if I was lucky enough to qualify I dont NABBA Britain (as line filler but entitled all the same) would that mean I was banned from competing in ANY UKBFF event? Or is it just the BRITISH I would be banned from for two years?

Putting money into their athletes? The select few at the top maybe. All that will happen is less people like me will be competing (and there are more like me than there are like Khan et al), so actually LESS money coming into UKBFF - at the level I am, I pay in, and don't take out - can't see me getting invite to Arnold any time soon :lol:

So, the money arguement is a joke. I want as much showtime for my prep as poss, now its looking like Nabba Scottish only next year (usual independant show not running next year) and no point really in doing UKBFF? Principal alone would put me off tbh, just dont know if I want to give them £15 membership fees now, what do I get for it? A lot of needless and pointless constraints. Shame, UKBFF Scottish is a great show, great venue and great promoter... might not hit him this coming year, but if it is a 2 year ban on ANY UKBFF event, it will hit the year after...

So, dieting for one show - not really worth it, back to drawing board for me I think


----------



## supercell (Aug 23, 2005)

But remember Paul, these are the rules now, if people dont like it they have a choice NOT to compete with the UKBFF.

To compete, qualify then compete with another fed and get banned, that's the athletes problem, noone elses.

Where I think there needs to be clarity is people knowing the rules. However the athletes are given the rules when they join or they can be viewed on their website, so there shouldn't be any confusion.

J


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

nice party line James....sorry mate but there are many of us who will never be a Pro yet love to compete giving a ban to an athlete that competes with other feds is a joke.....i agree that if you have qualified then yes remove their invite but not a 2yr ban how is this of a benefit to the sport?? i think many will see this as another ruling by the UKBFF to benefit themselves and not the Athlete....like i said before other Federations take teams abroad without banning athletes do not see the difference.....


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

supercell said:


> *This is how it works in other countries too. This year they are/have sending/sent athletes to the Worlds, Europeans and then another 7 athletes to the Arnolds. If you think with flights, accomodation, entry fees, sanction fees etc this will be approx £1500 per person. I think its fair to ask for some loyalty.*
> 
> As Scott said last night at the Hercules show, there is only one route to the top in our sport and that's with the IFBB. Whether that's everyone's opinion is open for debate as not everyone is going to want or even going to ever be Mr O or indeed a pro.
> 
> ...


I fail to see where the athletes competing in another fed has any bearing on this.

What effect does it have on the UKBFF if the athlete chooses to compete with another fed? none.

Why should it matter if the athlete chooses to compete with another fed? it shouldnt.

It doesnt matter what way you try to justify it,other organisations do the same for their athletes that the UKBFF are doing for theirs,but the other organisations dont choose to penalise their athletes when they *dare* to compete with another fed.

Its pathetic,and its nothing to do with 'cant take the heat get out of the kitchen' its plain old unjustified bullying.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

supercell said:


> But remember Paul, these are the rules now, if people dont like it they have a choice NOT to compete with the UKBFF.
> 
> To compete, qualify then compete with another fed and get banned, that's the athletes problem, noone elses.
> 
> ...


Yes James there are Rules now this does not mean we as Athletes have to agree with them or cannot voice our concerns with them.....

to be fair James as a IFBB pro i would not expect you to disagree with these rules.

i and many others do not see how it is financially bad for the UKBFF if an athlete competes at an UKBFF show pays his fees then competes at say the NABBA England, maybe you can tell us why this effects the UKBFF sending athletes to shows abroad??


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

Tinytom said:


> Bet I dont place at any UKBFF show next year now. :lol:


Ive been thinking the same RE NABBA about criticism I've posted elsewhere concerning the judging at the Uni.

Fk it, lets get a team of us together and start out own fed, Body Builders for Body Building - BBFBB :lol:


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

supercell said:


> This is how it works in other countries too. This year they are/have sending/sent athletes to the Worlds, Europeans and then another 7 athletes to the Arnolds. If you think with flights, accomodation, entry fees, sanction fees etc this will be approx £1500 per person. I think its fair to ask for some loyalty.


can someone please explain how competing with another fed effects the UKBFF coppers??

to be fair James there is a few things the UKBFF do that other countries do not for example other countries in europe do not give a Pro card to their Male overall winner we do why?? they have to go on to the Worlds and place top 6.

if the UKBFF are going to go down the same road as other IFBB affiliated countries then i would hope they do this with all the rules not just the ones they pick and choose....don't you agree?


----------



## supercell (Aug 23, 2005)

Thats what I said Paul, not everyone aspires to be a pro bodybuilder, which is why they have the choice to compete with other feds like NABBA.

J


----------



## Greyphantom (Oct 23, 2003)

Pscarb said:


> can someone please explain how competing with another fed effects the UKBFF coppers??


The only thing I can think of is the spectators they would or could lose out on and thus the door charge... I mean only the most dedicated fans would follow a competitor to all the shows if they chose to do several... but I agree with the sentiment that what does it cost the UKBFF really...??? Perhaps if they outlined their reasons better or more clearly other than we want to send a few out of many as RS suggests...


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

supercell said:


> But remember Paul, these are the rules now, if people dont like it they have a choice NOT to compete with the UKBFF.
> 
> To compete, qualify then compete with another fed and get banned, that's the athletes problem, noone elses.
> 
> ...


James - serious post here I would like your take on.

Lets put it in terms of you and I, to make it real.

You are a pro. You have put in an awesome amount of HARD work, other variables have helped you a long the way (genetics etc) and quite rightly so, you are where you are. You are not even yet at the top of your game, so you the sky is the limit for you really.

I'm not a pro. Never will be, not unless they start giving pro cards out on tokens from the back of packs of kinder eggs. I like kinder eggs. I have a very definite ceiling to what I can and can't achieve, and this rule cuts the amount of shows I am capable of doing, up to that cieling. Assuming I understand it right of course 

However, when you diet, and when I diet, we go through all the same things, regardless of where you are in the sport, and where I am, in the sport. Its just as hard for me as it is for you.

Yet this ruling effectively could stop me from competing with the UKBFF. I could be a very good amateur one day, all I want to do is get on stage as much as possible for my hard work, but it seems guys like me - and there are more of us than potential pros - are going to get hit hardest by this. Guys like you are in for a shout of the big boy, you are doing this seriously, its a different ball game, and guys of your level might not necessarily mind focussing everything on one or two shows a year...

I just want to get up there, entertain people if I can, and get people into the sport.

How can this ever be fair James? Shouldnt the message be to promote and drive bodybuilding on at ALL levels, not just suit the guys with a chance of making it right through and out the top?


----------



## Greyphantom (Oct 23, 2003)

supercell said:


> Thats what I said Paul, not everyone aspires to be a pro bodybuilder, which is why they have the choice to compete with other feds like NABBA.
> 
> J


So if they are in good nick body wise and could contend on a UKBFF stage then the party line is if you dont want to be pro we dont want you to compete...??? ouch... (genuine question there mate, just trying to figure out what they really want... its not just about the "loyalty" surely...)

*edit* or what RS said as he wrote it better...


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

supercell said:


> Thats what I said Paul, not everyone aspires to be a pro bodybuilder, which is why they have the choice to compete with other feds like NABBA.
> 
> J


my point James is that athletes should have the choice to compete with no restriction......by your point James only those who want a Pro card should choose to compete in the UKBFF....

maybe you can answer my question in my prevouise post "how do the UKBFF financially lose out if an athlete competes with another fed?"


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

rs007 said:


> Shouldnt the message be to promote and drive bodybuilding on at ALL levels, not just suit the guys with a chance of making it right through and out the top?


totally agree Ramsey


----------



## supercell (Aug 23, 2005)

This has obviously and perhaps understandably hit a nerve with a lot of people. Like I said, if people dont agree with the rules then you can vote with their feet and not attend/support or even compete in UKBFF shows.

However, when nearly every UKBFF show is a sell out and competitor numbers are 60+, it dosen't seem to be having a lot of impact on people and their opinions on the federation.

Investing in athletes is important. They want athletes that can be ambassadors for the UKBFF and IFBB abroad, not only when competing but also as spokes people representing the federation at home and abroad.

Having athletes jumping ship is not something they want and understandably so. This is why investment in athletes should be protected to some degree by the federation doing the investing.

J


----------



## Ser (Aug 10, 2008)

They just lost our families ticket sales......


----------



## supercell (Aug 23, 2005)

rs007 said:


> James - serious post here I would like your take on.
> 
> Lets put it in terms of you and I, to make it real.
> 
> ...


Good post and one of the reasons I started out with other federations and then moved to the UKBFF when I wanted to further my bodybuilding potential/career.

I do take all your points on board and will relay them back to the powers that be.

I am in an awquard position here as I am sure you understand.

Yes in an ideal world people would be free to compete where they wanted but its not an ideal world.

Like you I had no aspirations of becoming a pro bodybuilder, I never thought I was good enough and had it not been for the 202's I would still be an amateur now competing with the UKBFF or another federation.

J


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

supercell said:


> This has obviously and perhaps understandably hit a nerve with a lot of people. Like I said, if people dont agree with the rules then you can vote with their feet and not attend/support or even compete in UKBFF shows.
> 
> However, when nearly every UKBFF show is a sell out and competitor numbers are 60+, it dosen't seem to be having a lot of impact on people and their opinions on the federation.
> 
> ...


You use the term jumping ship when all that is happening is an athlete is being choked of stage time,its laughable,if the athletes were in some sort of paid contract with the UKBFF then i could understand you using the term,but not in these circumstances.

Put it this way,if people were to vote with their feet then certainly up here the UKBFF show would die off inevitably and given the way this new ruling is i cant see it going any other way,do you think that is forward progress?

Loving your elitist attitude,i held you in high regard James but your atitude in this debate has dented that and is mind boggling,i appreciate you being loyal and trying to defend your Federation but as an athlete even you must be able to see its nothing but a backwards step.


----------



## supercell (Aug 23, 2005)

Look guys I will leave it there. I take on board all the points made but we could literally go round in circles all day long.

I am sorry you think that my attitude is elitist. I am the only pro that posts on here frequently and gives my time, information, feedback, help, honesty etc and if that's elitist then I am sorry. I do more for this sport than a lot of people who are at my level because I enjoy it, I love doing what I do and being a professional; not just in bodybuilding but in life in general.

I am not going to fall out with people over something completely out of my control.

All I am doing is showing loyalty a bit like a striking post office worker than doesn't want to strike but risks being called a scab if they dont, when all they want to do is get on with their job and do it to the best of their ability.

Get my drift?

J


----------



## Greyphantom (Oct 23, 2003)

Weeman I think the investment he is on about is the funding of the trips to the arnold (and possibly others) that is happening for a very few members...


----------



## fit1 (Mar 27, 2009)

Nabba UK sends athletes all over the world, cant remember a time it cost £1500 per athlete even when we sent them to australia and brazil. Also the Universe last weekend had 173 competitors we had to book a whole hotel for the weekend to accomodate athletes from other countries we finance this with ticket sales and sponsorship not by banning athletes for 2 years, i do understand different associations have different rules and in a way i understand the loyalty thing but 2 years is not good. In wales i try to encourage athletes to support both feds with the old rules they could do this as my qualifier and nabba finals are in may so athletes can then support ukbff by doing a late qualifier and the finals, with the new rule im going to have to be selfish and not reccomend my athletes try both feds as this meens i would lose them for at least two years, this saddens me as Mike Gelsi is a friend of mine and we have always supported one and other although working for different feds. I personally think the ukbff are being selfish going on about how much it costs them for this and that, HOW MUCH DOES IT COST AN ATHLETE TO SUPPORT YOU GETTING PREPARED FOR A SHOW? respect for all competitors i think you should compete where you want to unless ukbff start paying for your prep, why beyond reasonable rules should they dictate where you compete.


----------



## glen danbury (May 23, 2006)

supercell said:


> This has obviously and perhaps understandably hit a nerve with a lot of people. Like I said, if people dont agree with the rules then you can vote with their feet and not attend/support or even compete in UKBFF shows.
> 
> However, when nearly every UKBFF show is a sell out and competitor numbers are 60+, it dosen't seem to be having a lot of impact on people and their opinions on the federation.
> 
> ...


If someone does well in another fed before doing the UKBFF finals surely this only increases exposure for the UKBFF finals as it creates extra talking points?

it would seem to me that the reason the UKBFF is doing this is not to protect their own bank balance but rather strangle out other feds by effectively killing off independents and NABBA shows due to the small pool of competitors choosing not to do anything but UKBFF through fear of being banned - if you cant beat them destroy them?


----------



## fit1 (Mar 27, 2009)

James dont know how many Nabba shows you attended this year but most of them were also sellouts with 50+ competitors, i personally think for either feb that had nothing to do with rules or loyalty just a damn good year in British Bodubuilding. Also believe both Britains were on a par competitor wise.


----------



## Ser (Aug 10, 2008)

If people were to boycott the UKFF they would listen, but people like to complain but still go anyway...they accept that their views(even though it is they who buy the tickets and fill the stage!) will be ignored.....of course thats just my opinion.

I wonder how many will be like me and my family and decide not to go.....shame, as the Scottish show is a really great show that is well run and has a great atmosphere....don't see it continuing to run for more than a few years now though....will die out through lack of competitors and lack of ticket sales.


----------



## supercell (Aug 23, 2005)

Yes I agree that UK BBing is certainly in a great place this year. I went to the SE and the British Finals to support some friends and both were great shows.

My first ever show was the NABBA SE, so it holds some very fond memories and the feedback and win I got that day was instrumental in my continuation within the sport.

J


----------



## Khaos1436114653 (Aug 28, 2009)

supercell said:


> Thats what I said Paul, not everyone aspires to be a pro bodybuilder, which is why they have the choice to compete with other feds like NABBA.
> 
> J


but if you weren't an IFBB pro, would you think it's fair, as you said you've competed across the federations and was only able to do so cos no ban was in place.


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

James - You havent seen the big picture if athletes get banned they wont need a contest prep guy so you'll be on the dole. :lol:

Join the movement brother  

I still believe that it will affect the earlier shows more than anything else.

Its easy to get round the rule if you compete in a late qualifier so I think the end losers will be guys like Paul Smith that see a drop in their competitors which ultimately affects ticket sales.

I sold over 100 tickets last year for Paul and many of those people were supporting guys that did other feds shows as well.

Remove the guys qualifications yes but banning them? I would bet that under a legal challenge at best they'd have to refund the yearly membership under a frustration of contract or similar ruling.

Maybe I should stop stirring it up, I would like to compete next year but am getting married in August so that pretty much rules me out of doing any UKBFF show as I'd also like to do NABBA as well.

Maybe people are forgetting that many pros have come from the NABBA/non UKBFF ranks such as Ernie Taylor, Eddie Ellwood, James L

If they really want to encourage top class athletes then a less draconian method should be considered.

I agree that if the federation is spending money then it shoudl have loyalty from the athletes they are spending money on but consider how many athletes were at the Brits finals at least 120.

How many are going to the Arnold? - 5 or 6

Thats 5% of the Brits finals athletes that actually benefit from staying loyal.

So per qualifier thats around 1-2 people that MAY benefit from staying loyal.

Not really overwhelming evidence.

People dont compete with the UKBFF because of an aspiration of being a Pro athlete. Lets be honest only about a handful of us will ever get to that level.

No people compete because of a few reasons

1. Locality - the show is near to them

2. Timing - The show is at a time they can manage

3. Exposure - The biggest shows receive the most mag coverage and so sponsored athletes compete here for recognition and to fulfill contractual obligations

4. Peer group - The different feds have their own cliques

5. Personal goal/dream - always wanted to compete/test themselves

6. Aspirations to be a pro athlete

Ask the majority of people why they compete and *I'll bet you the main reason is because they like competing *and the show they do will be dependant on a number of factors outlined above.

There's no financial reward for competing unless you are a sponsored athlete, people compete because they love the sport.

regulations are present in any sport and people abide by them but if those regs are perceived to be unjustified and unwarranted then the end result WILL be a gradual drop in the the number of competitors.

Its been mentioned that people compete in the UKBFF despite these regs and through gritted teeth, is that really what a sporting federation is about, having members who hate the federation they compete in?

If you are a professional athlete then yes you expect to tow the line but I would say that 99% of the athletes have a job which pays their bills and bbing is just a hobby and pasttime that they like to be competitive in.

Also in closing I would say that if people are banned from competing then surely this eventually reduces the quality of the athletes available to go to the Arnold as if people are serving out 2 year bans then there may be a situation where the best in the UK is sat on the sidelines which ultimately harms the UK bodybuilding scene not helps it.

Lots of considerations. Obviously if I enter a UKBFF show I'd abide by the rules laid out as has been said you accept the federation rules you join, I'm just highlighting that there are flaws in this stick mentality.


----------



## the force (Oct 22, 2009)

just reading the posts on the new rules with the ukbff and was wondering if justin trollope don the nabba universe on the weekend as he had done the ukbff british finals the week before,if he did will he now be banned from doing the ukbff for the next 2 yrs?


----------



## GBLiz (Jul 9, 2004)

i appreciate that James and james are simply the messengers in all this- at least we have a form of communication with the UKBFF now..

but i think this latest step is a real shame, it will scare people off from doing ukbff qualifiers IMO.

i dont see how banning people from the ukbff helps grow the ukbff??

example, im going for nabba toned figure again next year. I might go for bodyfitness the year after that when im back to size. But say i do the nabba qualifier up here in scotland. Seeing as its close to the UKBFF scottish, say Davey the show promoter persuades me to do bodyfitness as it ups the number of women (always a good thing). Say i do it, not thinking i'll qualify (and not planning to do the finals even if i did). Say i qualify........now if i do the nabba britain, i will be FORCED to stay with nabba as i'll be banned from the ukbff for 2 years!

i understood the original loyalty rule, but this one is beyond me!!

ESPECIALLY when i know for a fact , the ukbff said it was ok for two competitors to enter this years finals, knowing they had both done other feds since qualifying...they turned a blind eye to it and then ON THE DAY told the athletes they couldnt place them in the top 6 due to this, but wanted them to go onstage anyway!!!!!!


----------



## big_jim_87 (Jul 9, 2009)

supercell said:


> This is how it works in other countries too. This year they are/have sending/sent athletes to the Worlds, Europeans and then another 7 athletes to the Arnolds. If you think with flights, accomodation, entry fees, sanction fees etc this will be approx £1500 per person. I think its fair to ask for some loyalty.
> 
> As Scott said last night at the Hercules show, there is only one route to the top in our sport and that's with the IFBB. Whether that's everyone's opinion is open for debate as not everyone is going to want or even going to ever be Mr O or indeed a pro.
> 
> ...


good point and i agree. if you want to comp in the ukbff then this is the rule end of, if you dnt like it then dnt compn in the ukbff?


----------



## Khaos1436114653 (Aug 28, 2009)

So as long as i don't qualify for the Brits, it means i can compete in both federations or have i got this confused?? seeing as i'm damn good when i compete that means i can give the Nabba fans a little taster then qualify for the Brits and then win overall, otherwise i'll win my class and have to go to the Arnold and place top 6 to get considered for my pro card??


----------



## Zara-Leoni (Mar 12, 2007)

Ex-SRD said:


> Just to clarify:
> 
> The rules is if you qualify for the UKBFF Finals from any qualifier, then compete in a show with another federation, then you will lose your place in the Finals and will not be allowed to compete with the UKBFF for 2 years.
> 
> ...


Thats ridiculous!

I dont care how much money they are putting in.... this rule will not help them.

Lets be logical here for a minute. They will LOSE competitors because there are some people who prefer nabba but will do the odd UKBFF show just to do extra shows for whatever reason. Some people are going to choose NABBA over UKBFF now and they well LOSE these competitors and therefor money from entries and ticket sales from the friends and family that would go to support them.

Talk about cutting of your nose to spite your face.....



weeman said:


> the way the ruling was before ie if you qualify for brits and then compete with another fed you lose your qualification was reasonable tho not perfect,this new rule is utterly pathetic and yet another example of them strangling the sport.
> 
> To say their reasoning is asking for loyalty due to cash they are putting into the sport is so weak its laughable,its bullying,no question.
> 
> ...


Way I see it since our NABBA is before the UKBFF.... if you went along with this bollox you could do a NABBA every 2nd year....

I think a lot of people will choose to ditch the UKBFF shows now... basically the people who wont make it to a high level and compete as a hobby will have the option. ONE fed only or ALL the other ones.... ain't rocket science is it....?


----------



## big_jim_87 (Jul 9, 2009)

ok im not saying that its the best idea but you know what, if you dnt like it dnt comp with them and dnt go to the show? i will still go to the ukbff show's and comp with them next year (hope to any way) as they are the best? 2 yrs is a bit harsh but like i said if you dnt like it dnt go?


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

supercell said:


> Look guys I will leave it there. I take on board all the points made but we could literally go round in circles all day long.
> 
> I am sorry you think that my attitude is elitist. I am the only pro that posts on here frequently and gives my time, information, feedback, help, honesty etc and if that's elitist then I am sorry. I do more for this sport than a lot of people who are at my level because I enjoy it, I love doing what I do and being a professional; not just in bodybuilding but in life in general.
> 
> ...


When i said elitist i was meaning with regards to your attitude towards the arguement,everyone knows how much you contribute to the sport on many levels,theres no taking away from that and its fully aknowledged,yes this topic does hit a raw nerve and you are getting the brunt of shooting the messanger unfortunately,but in your shoes,with the respect people have for you,i would have said nothing on the subject than say anything at all.



Greyphantom said:


> Weeman I think the investment he is on about is the funding of the trips to the arnold (and possibly others) that is happening for a *very few members*...


theres the key words there mate,'very few members' so basically it feels like the UKBFF are saying we will look after the top minority and stuff all the rest of the competitors,its their fault for not being good enough?



GBLiz said:


> i appreciate that James and james are simply the messengers in all this- at least we have a form of communication with the UKBFF now..
> 
> but i think this latest step is a real shame, it will scare people off from doing ukbff qualifiers IMO.
> 
> ...


This was unbelievable,i was also told earlier in the year that had i qualified for the UKBFF finals that even tho i was going to go on and do the NABBA brits i would still have been fine to go on to the UKBFF finals,when in actual fact it was nothing of the sort,obviously in the end i didnt qualify anyway but it grated me to see this happen to friends on the day of the UKBFF show,people knew better beforehand quite clearly and could have prevented these two girls from wasting their time dieting,all the expense etc.

Its a disgrace.


----------



## Zara-Leoni (Mar 12, 2007)

supercell said:


> Thats what I said Paul, not everyone aspires to be a pro bodybuilder, which is why they have the choice to compete with other feds like NABBA.
> 
> J


So basically what you're saying here is if you don't aspire to be a pro or know you don't stand a chance in hell of every being one, fck off and compete elsewhere cos we don't need you?

Sorry to be so blunt but thats how that sounds mate. Its actually quite offensive and very "them and us" as if the rest of us aren't good enough and you dont need our money or support....



supercell said:


> This has obviously and perhaps understandably hit a nerve with a lot of people. *Like I said, if people dont agree with the rules then you can vote with their feet and not attend/support or even compete in UKBFF shows.*


as above.....



supercell said:


> However, when nearly every UKBFF show is a sell out and competitor numbers are 60+, it dosen't seem to be having a lot of impact on people and their opinions on the federation.


Yeah well wait and see what entries are like next year then lol....



supercell said:


> Investing in athletes is important. *They want athletes that can be ambassadors for the UKBFF and IFBB abroad,* not only when competing but also as spokes people representing the federation at home and abroad.
> 
> Having athletes jumping ship is not something they want and understandably so. This is why investment in athletes should be protected to some degree by the federation doing the investing.
> 
> J


Again sounds elitist. They want to remember where the bulk of their money is coming from.....


----------



## GBLiz (Jul 9, 2004)

big_jim_87 said:


> good point and i agree. if you want to comp in the ukbff then this is the rule end of, if you dnt like it then dnt compn in the ukbff?


exactly, so the ukbff will be losing people and thats a shame .

some people dont want to do the finals, they just want to do their local shows!

the only people that will forsake ALL other local shows etc, will be the very elite few singlemindedly going for a pro card.....

fair enough , make a decision which federation finals you want to do.....but the consequences shouldnt last 2 years....


----------



## Ex-SRD (Sep 9, 2008)

weeman said:


> Also for the likes of us north of the border,there are only 3 shows in our season,one is an independant,one is NABBA and the other is UKBFF,i'm sorry but as an athlete who has sacrificed his time,money,social life and everything else prepping entails then i feel i am entitled to as much showtime as possible and not have some overbearing organisation telling me who i can and can't compete with.


Hi Weeman

Thanks for your comments, I will feed them back.

But just to add as from 2010 there will be 2 UKBFF Scottish shows - Harry Ogg is a new promotor with the fed and is putting on a qualifier right up North in Scotland.


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

Zara-Leoni said:


> Way I see it since our NABBA is before the UKBFF.... if you went along with this bollox you could do a NABBA every 2nd year....
> 
> I think a lot of people will choose to ditch the UKBFF shows now... basically the people who wont make it to a high level and compete as a hobby will have the option. ONE fed only or ALL the other ones.... ain't rocket science is it....?


yep,its going to kill off Davy's show if this is going to be the rule that has to be followed,which as i said earlier would be a shame as its a great show,but the people up here are mainly competing as a hobby and arent under delusions that they are gner turn pro.



big_jim_87 said:


> ok im not saying that its the best idea but you know what, if you dnt like it dnt comp with them and dnt go to the show? i will still go to the ukbff show's and comp with them next year (hope to any way) as they are the best? 2 yrs is a bit harsh but like i said if you dnt like it dnt go?


Jim once you start competing your atitude will change i'd wager,its not a coincidence that every amateur athlete thats chimed into thread so far is disgusted with the ruling........

Also why do you think the UKBFF is the best? lol,the only thing that separates them from NABBA is one is affiliated to an organisation with which you can attain an IFBB pro card if your good enough,thats it.


----------



## Khaos1436114653 (Aug 28, 2009)

Khaos said:


> So as long as i don't qualify for the Brits, it means i can compete in both federations or have i got this confused?? seeing as i'm damn good when i compete that means i can give the Nabba fans a little taster then qualify for the Brits and then win overall, otherwise i'll win my class and have to go to the Arnold and place top 6 to get considered for my pro card??


 this was a serious point i need clarifying on as i can't afford a two year ban:confused1:


----------



## Greyphantom (Oct 23, 2003)

weeman said:


> theres the key words there mate,'very few members' so basically it feels like the UKBFF are saying we will look after the top minority and stuff all the rest of the competitors,its their fault for not being good enough?


Thats the meaning of my message... and I wholeheartedly agree with you all about freezing out or penalising those who perhaps do not aspire to be pros...


----------



## big_jim_87 (Jul 9, 2009)

weeman said:


> yep,its going to kill off Davy's show if this is going to be the rule that has to be followed,which as i said earlier would be a shame as its a great show,but the people up here are mainly competing as a hobby and arent under delusions that they are gner turn pro.
> 
> *Jim once you start competing your atitude will change i'd wager,its not a coincidence that every amateur athlete thats chimed into thread so far is disgusted with the ruling........*
> 
> *Also why do you think the UKBFF is the best? lol,the only thing that separates them from NABBA is one is affiliated to an organisation with which you can attain an IFBB pro card if your good enough,thats it*.


i was under the understanding the level was higher in the ukbff? like i said 2yrs is harsh but if it is the ukbff you want to comp in then this is what you have to put up with now? ranting on an online bbing bord aint gona change this? if you want to do nabba then what the prob? lol i think ppl will calm down in a few days and will find ways round or make up ther mindes on what they want to do.


----------



## Zara-Leoni (Mar 12, 2007)

fit1 said:


> Nabba UK sends athletes all over the world, cant remember a time it cost £1500 per athlete even when we sent them to australia and brazil. Also the Universe last weekend had 173 competitors we had to book a whole hotel for the weekend to accomodate athletes from other countries we finance this with ticket sales and sponsorship not by banning athletes for 2 years, i do understand different associations have different rules and in a way i understand the loyalty thing but 2 years is not good. In wales i try to encourage athletes to support both feds with the old rules they could do this as my qualifier and nabba finals are in may so athletes can then support ukbff by doing a late qualifier and the finals, with the new rule im going to have to be selfish and not reccomend my athletes try both feds as this meens i would lose them for at least two years, this saddens me as Mike Gelsi is a friend of mine and we have always supported one and other although working for different feds. I personally think the ukbff are being selfish going on about how much it costs them for this and that, HOW MUCH DOES IT COST AN ATHLETE TO SUPPORT YOU GETTING PREPARED FOR A SHOW? respect for all competitors i think you should compete where you want to unless ukbff start paying for your prep, why beyond reasonable rules should they dictate where you compete.


Good post and good points :thumbup1:



Mrs Weeman said:


> If people were to boycott the UKFF they would listen, but people like to complain but still go anyway...they accept that their views(even though it is they who buy the tickets and fill the stage!) will be ignored.....of course thats just my opinion.
> 
> I wonder how many will be like me and my family and decide not to go.....shame, as the Scottish show is a really great show that is well run and has a great atmosphere....don't see it continuing to run for more than a few years now though....will die out through lack of competitors and lack of ticket sales.


The thing about this is that the Scottish UKBFF is only now jst really taking off and getting popular. People in Scotland are a bit more NABBA orientated I reckon.... very bad news for the organisers as they put on a great show. Theres so much loyalty to the NABBA Scotland and to the people who run it up here that I just can't see the majority of the competitors giving that up.



Tinytom said:


> *James - You havent seen the big picture if athletes get banned they wont need a contest prep guy so you'll be on the dole.* :lol:


That may have been said in jest but theres a serious point there.

If athletes are doing less shows people outside the feds in ancillary occupations are going to lose money.



Tinytom said:


> Join the movement brother
> 
> I still believe that it will affect the earlier shows more than anything else.
> 
> ...


Spot on mate :thumbup1:


----------



## big_jim_87 (Jul 9, 2009)

this is just the ukbff way of keeping the top flight boys?

if you are shooting for a card then you will stay put? if not then....


----------



## Ex-SRD (Sep 9, 2008)

GBLiz said:


> i appreciate that James and james are simply the messengers in all this- at least we have a form of communication with the UKBFF now..


*Yes, this is important*. James L is really only commenting, and you guys are jumping on him. Rules are rules, and yes, like Paul S says, you have the right to complain about the rules. Just as others, like James, has the right to counter your complaints too.

I think James has made some very good posts here, and does raise some good points.

I think some of you also have some very fair points.

I have the duty to collate the points made on UKM and MT and feed them back in due course to the fed. I will do this.



> but i think this latest step is a real shame, it will scare people off from doing ukbff qualifiers IMO.


Remember the UKBFF themselves only put on the Finals. Other promotors put on the qualifiers, and they (we!) have to abide their rules.

I will not comment on everyones' posts, but I will read them and feed relevant points back to the federation.


----------



## Zara-Leoni (Mar 12, 2007)

Heres a question for someone in the know.....

Say you do NABBA, qualify for brits....

Then do UKBFF and DO NOT qualify for brits.....

Then do NABBA brits.....

Are you then disqualified for 2 years or can you do another UKBFF qualifier since the post said you are disqualified if you qualify for the brits then compete with another federation......?


----------



## Ex-SRD (Sep 9, 2008)

Zara-Leoni said:


> Heres a question for someone in the know.....
> 
> Say you do NABBA, qualify for brits....
> 
> ...


I do not know. However, example scenarios like this are useful for us to get clarification.


----------



## Khaos1436114653 (Aug 28, 2009)

Zara-Leoni said:


> Heres a question for someone in the know.....
> 
> Say you do NABBA, qualify for brits....
> 
> ...


thats what i want to know:confused1:


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

big_jim_87 said:


> i was under the understanding the level was higher in the ukbff? like i said 2yrs is harsh but if it is the ukbff you want to comp in then this is what you have to put up with now? ranting on an online bbing bord aint gona change this? if you want to do nabba then what the prob? lol i think ppl will calm down in a few days and will find ways round or make up ther mindes on what they want to do.


mate if you've been around competitive bodybuilding for any length of time then you will realise this really WONT calm down shortly,people have been p1ssed off for years with the UKBFF over their stupid ruling.

why make a big hullabaloo over it? because hopefully the officials will have a moment of clarity one day and realise how stupid and backward for the sport this is,just like they did a few years ago when after a lot of backlash they LIFTED the ruling for a year only to reinstate it a year later with no apparent reasoning for it.

The fact that it actually got lifted before speaks volumes and gives me for one hope that perhaps they MIGHT actually see sense.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

supercell said:


> This has obviously and perhaps understandably hit a nerve with a lot of people. Like I said, if people dont agree with the rules then you can vote with their feet and not attend/support or even compete in UKBFF shows.


i don't see how this pushes Bodybuilding in the UK forward though??



supercell said:


> Investing in athletes is important. They want athletes that can be ambassadors for the UKBFF and IFBB abroad, not only when competing but also as spokes people representing the federation at home and abroad.


 i have yet to hear why an athlete competing in say a NABBA show after qualifying for the UKBFF finals harms the UKBFF in any way



supercell said:


> Having athletes jumping ship is not something they want and understandably so. This is why investment in athletes should be protected to some degree by the federation doing the investing.
> 
> J


why is it considered jumping ship?? they are competing in another federation that is all i do not see how this harms the UKBFF


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

Zara-Leoni said:


> Heres a question for someone in the know.....
> 
> Say you do NABBA, qualify for brits....
> 
> ...


This is what I would love to know. Realistically I am not going to do UKBFF brits in the future if ever, but I like the open nature of their qualifiers. If there is now going to be two qualifiers in my area, and I am ok to enter those regardless, then I would be a little happier - although I believe they are at opposite ends of the season, so two diets etc...

I just want to be on stage :confused1:


----------



## big_jim_87 (Jul 9, 2009)

weeman said:


> mate if you've been around competitive bodybuilding for any length of time then you will realise this really WONT calm down shortly,people have been p1ssed off for years with the UKBFF over their stupid ruling.
> 
> why make a big hullabaloo over it? because hopefully the officials will have a moment of clarity one day and realise how stupid and backward for the sport this is,just like they did a few years ago when after a lot of backlash they LIFTED the ruling for a year only to reinstate it a year later with no apparent reasoning for it.
> 
> The fact that it actually got lifted before speaks volumes and gives me for one hope that perhaps they MIGHT actually see sense.


well i never said this was a good idea but unless they they are on ukm this rant is pointlless lol like you said hopefully they will change this as id like the freedom too.


----------



## GBLiz (Jul 9, 2004)

if you want to do the local ukbff show for experience, you'll have to make sure that you mess up or dont show up for the final round:lol: :lol: so that you have still been on stage, but not qualified:cursing:

I think the new north scotland area is a good thing as scotlands a big place! But agree with weeman this will totally kill off davys show if harry chooses the timing to suit the loyalty rules.....


----------



## big_jim_87 (Jul 9, 2009)

GBLiz said:


> *if you want to do the local ukbff show for experience, you'll have to make sure that you mess up or dont show up for the final round:lol:* :lol: * so that you have still been on stage, but not qualified:cursing:*
> 
> I think the new north scotland area is a good thing as scotlands a big place! But agree with weeman this will totally kill off davys show if harry chooses the timing to suit the loyalty rules.....


you can turn it down?


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

big_jim_87 said:


> well i never said this was a good idea but unless they they are on ukm this rant is pointlless lol like you said hopefully they will change this as id like the freedom too.


You have a point there, although I think James C has their ear to feed back to?

I remember I emailed the UKBFF on thier site to get info on judging scores if available - didnt even respond...

So I don't think they themselves are on this forum in an official capacity.

Not James L's fault at all, he is getting jumped on unfairly IMO, its jsut that people are frustrated and needing to vent...

Ach he's a midget anyway - he will have thick skin from years of abuse, he can take it :whistling:


----------



## big_jim_87 (Jul 9, 2009)

rs007 said:


> You have a point there, although I think James C has their ear to feed back to?
> 
> I remember I emailed the UKBFF on thier site to get info on judging scores if available - didnt even respond...
> 
> ...


good point! the guy is a pro in the organisation you lot are cvnting off if he agrees with the ruling or not he must be seen to back it up?


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

big_jim_87 said:


> this is just the ukbff way of keeping the top flight boys?
> 
> if you are shooting for a card then you will stay put? if not then....


the top flight boys stick with the UKBFF anyway because of their prevouise ruling, there is probably a handfull of the 250 competitors at this years final that could aspire to a Pro card so this ruling effects alot more than a few top flight guys



Ex-SRD said:


> *Yes, this is important*. James L is really only commenting, and you guys are jumping on him. Rules are rules, and yes, like Paul S says, you have the right to complain about the rules. Just as others, like James, has the right to counter your complaints too.
> 
> .


to be fair no one is jumping on James only disagreeing with his opinion as James disagrees with mine.....

it is a hard place for James as he is a IFBB Pro but the amount of discussion this one thread has created should be a sign to the UKBFF


----------



## Ex-SRD (Sep 9, 2008)

GBLiz said:


> if you want to do the local ukbff show for experience, you'll have to make sure that you mess up or dont show up for the final round:lol: :lol: so that you have still been on stage, but not qualified:cursing:
> 
> I think the new north scotland area is a good thing as scotlands a big place! But agree with weeman this will totally kill off davys show if harry chooses the timing to suit the loyalty rules.....


It is actually Davy who has introduced Harry as a promoter


----------



## big_jim_87 (Jul 9, 2009)

Pscarb said:


> the top flight boys stick with the UKBFF anyway because of their prevouise ruling, there is probably a handfull of the 250 competitors at this years final that could aspire to a Pro card so this ruling effects alot more than a few top flight guys
> 
> to be fair no one is jumping on James only disagreeing with his opinion as James disagrees with mine.....
> 
> *it is a hard place for James as he is a IFBB Pro but the amount of discussion this one thread has created should be a sign to the UKBFF*


do they have a rep on this bord? some one who has a say in the ruling?


----------



## GBLiz (Jul 9, 2004)

big_jim_87 said:


> you can turn it down?


can you???

that would help matters if you had the choice to turn down the invite if you do so on the day (or soon after), without penalty

the ukbff dont tend to reply to emails its true, i emailed them to ask about the classic class rules and judging- no response:whistling:


----------



## Ex-SRD (Sep 9, 2008)

rs007 said:


> You have a point there, although I think James C has their ear to feed back to?
> 
> I remember I emailed the UKBFF on thier site to get info on judging scores if available - didnt even respond...
> 
> So I don't think they themselves are on this forum in an official capacity.


No, that's my unofficial job, for my sins!


----------



## Zara-Leoni (Mar 12, 2007)

GBLiz said:


> can you???
> 
> that would help matters if you had the choice to turn down the invite if you do so on the day (or soon after), without penalty
> 
> *the ukbff dont tend to reply to emails its true, i emailed them to ask about the classic class rules and judging- no response* :whistling:


I've had same experience as you and Ramsay. They've never replied to anything I've sent.

But we're not pro's so they're not interested in us :wink:

I don't imagine it would make a difference if you turn down the invite or dont go.... as it says "If you qualify for the brits" I think as mentioned above you'd need to muck up and not place pmsl...

Just make sure your posing music has sweary words in it and they'll disqualify you..... Or wear a thong..... :tongue:


----------



## willsey4 (Apr 21, 2008)

Blimey, didnt realise I had opened such a controversial thread!

Have read everyones points and this is what i think:

UKBFF: I dont agree with the ruling. I do not know too much about the federation as never competed with them but feel a touch of arrogance from them. If arrogance is the right word I do not know so apologise now if that affends anyone. It didnt help matters with my opinion of them when I rang them for ticket information (via the number on the ukbf website) and spoke to the most rudest person I have spoken to in a while. If i wasnt desperate to see the show I would of told him where to shove it! And he was meant to be promoting the event!!!

Tinytom: I agree with what Tom says about losing competitors. Lets just hope that the UKBFF actually have some statistics in place to compare the number of competitors in each show with the following year. If and when competitors start to diminish then hopefully they will scrap this rule and that will be the end of that.

James L: I think James might feel slightly different if wasnt a pro. However cant all jump on James for defending them. If i was James I would prob do the same with what they have done for him in the past. Understandable there is some loyalty to them.

Anyway, thats my input. Crap it might be but there you go.


----------



## Ex-SRD (Sep 9, 2008)

I think one thing is clear from this topic: They need a more efficient system for people to ask them questions and get replies directly.

I am certainly going to push for this.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Ex-SRD said:


> I think one thing is clear from this topic: They need a more efficient system for people to ask them questions and get replies directly.
> 
> I am certainly going to push for this.


yes they need to communicate not dictate


----------



## the force (Oct 22, 2009)

:tongue:



supercell said:


> Look guys I will leave it there. I take on board all the points made but we could literally go round in circles all day long.
> 
> I am sorry you think that my attitude is elitist. I am the only pro that posts on here frequently and gives my time, information, feedback, help, honesty etc and if that's elitist then I am sorry. I do more for this sport than a lot of people who are at my level because I enjoy it, I love doing what I do and being a professional; not just in bodybuilding but in life in general.
> 
> ...


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

big_jim_87 said:


> good point! the guy is a pro in the organisation you lot are cvnting off if he agrees with the ruling or not he must be seen to back it up?


no one is cvnting anyone off jim,its a debate between competitive bodybuilders/show promoters which hits a nerve being as it directly affects which path our careers may be forced to go down,calm yourself down.


----------



## the force (Oct 22, 2009)

so james l looks like it got a little to hot in the kitchen and u got out of there lol.


----------



## Khaos1436114653 (Aug 28, 2009)

Zara-Leoni said:


> I've had same experience as you and Ramsay. They've never replied to anything I've sent.
> 
> But we're not pro's so they're not interested in us :wink:
> 
> ...


thats me out then, i'll use some gansta thug rap posing tunes and wear a union jack mankini:lol: :lol:


----------



## Khaos1436114653 (Aug 28, 2009)

anyway they don't know who i am:lol: :lol: :whistling:


----------



## jw007 (Apr 12, 2007)

Very interesting\entertaining thread...

Just a thought, But would it be possible for "another" organisation to approach "IFBB" with a view to a series of qualifiers and a final comp for basically another route to a pro card???

Would not Nabba be up for this?? I dont know politics??

But if another route was available for a pro card in this country, then everyone could fck the ukbff off:thumb:


----------



## willsey4 (Apr 21, 2008)

jw007 said:


> Very interesting\entertaining thread...
> 
> Just a thought, But would it be possible for "another" organisation to approach "IFBB" with a view to a series of qualifiers and a final comp for basically another route to a pro card???
> 
> ...


Good question!

Prob some contract in there which says only one organisation can do it but will see if anyone else knows otherwise.

I wonder how many organisations there are in the US that gives a pro card out?


----------



## Zara-Leoni (Mar 12, 2007)

jw007 said:


> Very interesting\entertaining thread...
> 
> Just a thought, But would it be possible for "another" organisation to approach "IFBB" with a view to a series of qualifiers and a final comp for basically another route to a pro card???
> 
> ...


In other words would the IFBB allow a 2nd federation to affiliate to them in the UK? Unlikely as would prob be seen as conflict of interests but an interesting thought..

NABBA would be out I imagine as whole idea of then is they are amateur.

There are other feds though but I dont know much about them.... what was the one Malika was competing with this year? WPF was it? Am sure they have shows/qualifiers in UK and there's another new-ish one I think too as recall seeing a post about it and looking for ppl to send to a show in Italy or summat to represent UK....?

Maybe this opens the doors for these (currently) less popular feds to get more entries to to their classes and hold more shows.....


----------



## supercell (Aug 23, 2005)

People forget that I was at the sharp end of their rulings in 2006 and 2007. I was banned for competing with WABBA and even though I had won the British middleweights in 2005 I was still banned from doing the British. I had to requalify in 2007. I took it on the chin. They made an example out of me when others were allowed to compete (i.e Flex Lewis) after competing with NABBA at the Universe.

I wasn't loyal and paid the price but I apologised and cracked on regardless.

In life you will always have little hurdles to get over, that was just another.

All I will say is if this topic or similar UKBFF threads come up again I will not comment. As someone said, I could have chosen not to comment and from now on that is exactly what I will do.

If you feel strongly enough, vote with your feet and your wallets but please do not be hypocritical and support a federation which so many of you seem to dislike.

Good night, god bless and realise that in the whole massive scheme of things in life this really is so insignifcant.

J


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

Im in discussions about fkning off the lot of them and moving to BNBF  :whistling:


----------



## Ex-SRD (Sep 9, 2008)

I think James L has made some valid comments; I've no doubt many will not like, though.

Maybe he and I have a different viewpint because we both work with the UKBFF and speak regularly to the Powers there. When they explain their reasons for the ruling verbally they do make sense to us; as (some) of your comments here now do too.

Business is business and rules are rules. If you compete with the Federation you have to abide by their rules. If you don't like their rules, then don't compete with the Federation. It's simply business, and personally I think the way the Federation is going is excellent and I am fully supporting them. There are some rules I do not like, and some I have voted against. I'm sure there will be more.

You don't have to go to the UKBFF shows, but remember they are run by promotors who run the show as their business. They (we) pay the Federation to use their name and rules, this is why I have asked for the MT show to go that way because I, on the whole, respect the way they're going.

The IFBB does dominate competative bodybuilding. Fact. You may not like it, but it does. Liek James says, you have rights, but if you chose to boycott the shows, you'll miss some cracking shows like the Hercules or the Portsmouth (and many more) - shows have a lot more entertainment that quality physiques.

This is one rules you may not like, but on the whole the way the UKBFF is going is very much pushing forward competative bodybuilding in the UK, and I want to push competative bodybuilding forward in the UK, so working with them is the way to go. For this reason, I personally feel asking for some loyalty is perfectly acceptable.

You do have the right to voice your issues with the rule - please do so, there are two busy UK boards to do this on. I promise I will feed these concerns back.

However, the UKBFF and those working alongside it (like James and I) have the right to counter these issues with responses on behalf of the Federation as well as our own personal opinions.

There's no need to disgaree with my post here, folks because:

1) These are my personal opinions

and

2) You already have above

If I have not been clear, then please do let me know. I am not signing off of this topic (though I feel James has done the right thing doing so for him), but I will be purposly limiting my typed replies mainly because time is limited.

Thanks for continuing a constructive debate.


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

Hey James (both of you  ) your replies are appreciated!!! Would be a very boring world if everyone had the same opinion!!!!

Now facts, facts are a better medium for debate, don't ya think?

The fact is, you say business is business, but - and I quote - the "IFBB is registered as a not-for-profit legal entity."

Also, lets say for example, I don't compete at my local UKBFF show any more, due to it not really being worth my while anymore.

My yearly membership fee is lost. £15 a year. Not much. BUT the family and friends I take to shows, won't be going, and each of the two years I have competed at the UKBFF Scottish (must stress, fantastic show), there has been at least half a dozen of them paying full ticket price.

As my awesomeness inevitably grows, I fully expect completley unknown people to travel far and wide to pay homage. 

Anyway, what I am getting at is thats a lot of ticket sales, and that is going to have a knock on effect for promoters.

And before I get accused of not supporting the promoter myself by not going, we have already been told above if we don't like it, not to go, so you can't play both sides of that banjo. And, the UKBFF is pushing this down, not me - I am delighted to compete at my own considerable costs (in every way a thing can cost a person).

How can this have any semblance of business sense. All it is doing is LOSING money, not gaining anything - I think thats what people are getting at. It is gaining nothing for the UKBFF, instead it is only adding to growing discontent.

The old "if you don't like it, lump it" argument only goes so far. This suggests what I like to call "Titanic Syndrome"

They think they are so big they can't sink.

The IFBB also state as one of their aims to promote bodybuilding, this move is direclty counter to that, by basically making it pointless for guys like me to try and get anywhere with them? How many potential Mr & Ms Olympias will never be discovered through simply not getting that initial encouragement.

Fair enough though, if the situation is what it appears... then we shall all cross bridges as we come to them :thumbup1:


----------



## Greyphantom (Oct 23, 2003)

rs007 said:


> As my awesomeness inevitably grows, I fully expect completley unknown people to travel far and wide to pay homage.


I was just thinking to myself that RS is so awesome I have to travel far and wide to bow at his feet... you must have esp mate...  

Your gist however is quite correct... also the question of what detrimental effect to the fed does having bbers compete in other feds have on the fed has not been answered... if you get my drift...


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

Just thinking actually, to throw a flip side argument into the mix (playing devils advocate here).

As has been said, as an amateur, my priority is stage time return for my hard work on diet, not results per se.

So, actually, being as every UKBFF qualifier is open, not area limited as with NABBA, it might make sense for me to stay strictly UKBFF - assuming I had enough funds to travel, for a good portion of the year there would be a show almost every week I could participate in.

Just throwing a flip side.


----------



## LittleChris (Jan 17, 2009)




----------



## Khaos1436114653 (Aug 28, 2009)

im gonna register as a jamaican citizen, win the carribbean nationals and get my pro card, and join IFBB.... whaa blow me breddrens:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Ex-SRD said:


> I think James L has made some valid comments; I've no doubt many will not like, though.
> 
> *Maybe he and I have a different viewpint because we both work with the UKBFF and speak regularly to the Powers there. When they explain their reasons for the ruling verbally they do make sense to us*; as (some) of your comments here now do too.
> 
> ...


James thanks for this post there is no anger not on my part just frustration you mention that you and James speak to the powers that be and after they have explained the whole situation it makes sense but then this is not fully explained to the fans so you have to understand the frustration.....there have been changes to the UKBFF in the past 12months that i have supported......i have asked this question many times on this thread with no apparent answer so if you could answer this i would appreciate it......how does someone competing in both NABBA and the UKBFF effect the financial situation of the UKBFF when they still would of paid there fees and their supporters would of bought tickets to see the show??

I will say though having an opinion and disagreeing with the ruling then going to support friends and family at a UKBFF show does not make anyone hypocritical it makes them human, we all have opinions and have the right to air them just because we do not agree does not make anyone's opinion less valid...


----------



## Zara-Leoni (Mar 12, 2007)

supercell said:


> People forget that I was at the sharp end of their rulings in 2006 and 2007. I was banned for competing with WABBA and even though I had won the British middleweights in 2005 I was still banned from doing the British. I had to requalify in 2007. I took it on the chin. They made an example out of me when others were allowed to compete (i.e Flex Lewis) after competing with NABBA at the Universe.
> 
> I wasn't loyal and paid the price but I apologised and cracked on regardless.
> 
> J


Yeah but the difference is you knew you had a goal to achieve so you HAD to take it on the chin in order to get where you wanted to be, this isn't the case for 99% of the rest of us.



rs007 said:


> Im in discussions about fkning off the lot of them and moving to BNBF  :whistling:


I'm off to the NPA.... none of them have ever heard of me, I'll be fine.... :lol:



Ex-SRD said:


> Business is business and rules are rules. If you compete with the Federation you have to abide by their rules. If you don't like their rules, then don't compete with the Federation. It's simply business, and personally I think the way the Federation is going is excellent and I am fully supporting them. There are some rules I do not like, and some I have voted against. I'm sure there will be more.
> 
> You don't have to go to the UKBFF shows, but remember they are run by promotors who run the show as their business. They (we) pay the Federation to use their name and rules, this is why I have asked for the MT show to go that way because I, on the whole, respect the way they're going.
> 
> ...


I'm not talking about boycotting going to watch their shows.... I'm p1ssed off at the fact they wont allow me to compete in them if I compete with another federation.

And I ask you (all) this.... what, exactly, other than provide a show for us to compete in (which now in itself may be a moot point) does the UKBFF do for us at our level??

What I can see they do is provide us with competitions to take part in, and for the VERY few who are pro-standard, give them a route to get a pro card and move onto competing internationally on the pro circuit. This is great for one person (male) per year. I'm not meaning to be a [email protected] here but I'm trying to figure out what exactly they are doing thats so great that we ought to be greatful for. If someone can give me a few examples I shall concede to being mistaken but right now I'm not seeing it.....

If the answer is putting on big professional shows then great. If we are allowed to even do them. Otherwise its not much use is it? But tell me how me or anyone else doing a NABBA show say, is going to hinder that? What EXACTLY is it that us competing with other federations is going to take away from them? Because I tell you this, it certainly is not money, and we're not all dumb enough to believe that one. "Loyalty" is a bollox excuse I'm sorry. We're not in a relationship here, its nothing personal, its a bodybuilding competion.

I come back to the fact that the UKBFF are going to LOSE money because some people will inevitably choose to go with the other federations.



rs007 said:


> Hey James (both of you  ) your replies are appreciated!!! Would be a very boring world if everyone had the same opinion!!!!
> 
> Now facts, facts are a better medium for debate, don't ya think?
> 
> ...


Ramsay makes a good point here. Not much to add to it except that we're really not getting any logical answers.

If you dont like it bugger off basically

They want us to be loyal but cant explain who that benefits or why

They claim its to further the sport but cant explain how it will

Money is apparently required yet this move will cause them to lose some

There are a clear set of double standards where some competitors get banned or lose their qualifications and others are overlooked.

Super... :thumbup1:

I'm going to use 2 names and buy a brown wig. See how long it takes them to catch on....


----------



## Zara-Leoni (Mar 12, 2007)

rs007 said:


> Just thinking actually, to throw a flip side argument into the mix (playing devils advocate here).
> 
> As has been said, as an amateur, my priority is stage time return for my hard work on diet, not results per se.
> 
> ...


Yeah but thats always been the case.

I planned to do NABBA Scottish, UKBFF Scottish then possibly one or two other UKBFF shows later during the year and maybe also the NABBA england or something. Now, well god knows.


----------



## Zara-Leoni (Mar 12, 2007)

Pscarb said:


> James thanks for this post there is no anger not on my part just frustration you mention that you and James speak to the powers that be and after they have explained the whole situation it makes sense but then this is not fully explained to the fans so you have to understand the frustration.....there have been changes to the UKBFF in the past 12months that i have supported......*i have asked this question many times on this thread with no apparent answer so if you could answer this i would appreciate it......how does someone competing in both NABBA and the UKBFF effect the financial situation of the UKBFF* when they still would of paid there fees and their supporters would of bought tickets to see the show??
> 
> I will say though having an opinion and disagreeing with the ruling then going to support friends and family at a UKBFF show does not make anyone hypocritical it makes them human, we all have opinions and have the right to air them just because we do not agree does not make anyone's opinion less valid...


This is the one we all keep coming back to and getting nowhere with.....


----------



## Ex-SRD (Sep 9, 2008)

rs007 said:


> The fact is, you say business is business, but - and I quote - the "IFBB is registered as a not-for-profit legal entity."


A business doesn't have to make supernormal profit. It can operate to increase it's turnover so it can increase it's expenditure, in this case do more for UK BBing and its athletes.



> Also, lets say for example, I don't compete at my local UKBFF show any more, due to it not really being worth my while anymore.
> 
> My yearly membership fee is lost. £15 a year. Not much. BUT the family and friends I take to shows, won't be going, and each of the two years I have competed at the UKBFF Scottish (must stress, fantastic show), there has been at least half a dozen of them paying full ticket price.
> 
> ...


That is one perspective and a fine and logical one. But another perspective could be that they hope to increase their loyalty and hence the quality of their competitors, leading to better attendance from the public. This makes perfect buisness sense. Obviously, your arguamant is one that upsets everyone and few go for this reason. But, some will not see it that way.

I'm sure you'll agree that the standard of this year's Finals was superb and if this upward trend can continue, it makes perfect sense that better standard means more audience. Moreover, this means better competition and competitors may thrive on this (obviously, I also accept there is a converse to this arguament too!).



> The IFBB also state as one of their aims to promote bodybuilding, this move is direclty counter to that, by basically making it pointless for guys like me to try and get anywhere with them? How many potential Mr & Ms Olympias will never be discovered through simply not getting that initial encouragement.


but I do nto see ti this way. I see they are promoting BBing

If you choose not to go for these reasons, there will be some ****ing enjoyable shows you're missing out on, including the Body Power Expo.


----------



## Ex-SRD (Sep 9, 2008)

rs007 said:


> Just thinking actually, to throw a flip side argument into the mix (playing devils advocate here).
> 
> As has been said, as an amateur, my priority is stage time return for my hard work on diet, not results per se.
> 
> ...


There will be 17 UKBFF qualifiers this year (I say 'this year' because the year started last weekend at the Hercules), which is two more than previously.


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

James,with all due repect mate,thats what...4 times or more that Paul has asked the same question now and still no answer to it,are you able to answer at all?


----------



## Ex-SRD (Sep 9, 2008)

Pscarb said:


> James thanks for this post there is no anger not on my part just frustration you mention that you and James speak to the powers that be and after they have explained the whole situation it makes sense but then this is not fully explained to the fans so you have to understand the frustration.....there have been changes to the UKBFF in the past 12months that i have supported......i have asked this question many times on this thread with no apparent answer so if you could answer this i would appreciate it......how does someone competing in both NABBA and the UKBFF effect the financial situation of the UKBFF when they still would of paid there fees and their supporters would of bought tickets to see the show??


Like I have said, I do feel the communication avenues need to be improved. I have said I'm happy to be their web eyes and ears, but I do only have moderate knowledge of what goes on. I will learn in time.

Your question will be passed on, but please don't expect me to get back to you very quickly.



> I will say though having an opinion and disagreeing with the ruling then going to support friends and family at a UKBFF show does not make anyone hypocritical it makes them human, we all have opinions and have the right to air them just because we do not agree does not make anyone's opinion less valid...


I agree.


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

oops i retract that post as i see you've adressed it,sorry mate.


----------



## Ex-SRD (Sep 9, 2008)

weeman said:


> James,with all due repect mate,thats what...4 times or more that Paul has asked the same question now and still no answer to it,are you able to answer at all?


With all due respect Weeman. I was typing as you posted. I have already said I dont have the answers and will pass them on in this topic though. I am responding to each person in turn while answering phone, email, doorbell.


----------



## Ex-SRD (Sep 9, 2008)

weeman said:


> oops i retract that post as i see you've adressed it,sorry mate.


Oooh I'll retract mine too

:lol:


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

Ex-SRD said:


> With all due respect Weeman. I was typing as you posted. I have already said I dont have the answers and will pass them on in this topic though. * I am responding to each person in turn while answering phone, email, doorbell*.


what?!?!? you mean you have a life as well as posting on the forum? this simply wont do :lol: :lol:


----------



## Ex-SRD (Sep 9, 2008)

Zara-Leoni said:


> And I ask you (all) this.... what, exactly, other than provide a show for us to compete in (which now in itself may be a moot point) does the UKBFF do for us at our level??


It is trying to raise the positive profile of UK BBing which indirectly postively affects all involved: competitors, spectators, fans, promotors, etc.



> What I can see they do is provide us with competitions to take part in, and for the VERY few who are pro-standard, give them a route to get a pro card and move onto competing internationally on the pro circuit. This is great for one person (male) per year. I'm not meaning to be a [email protected] here but I'm trying to figure out what exactly they are doing thats so great that we ought to be greatful for. If someone can give me a few examples I shall concede to being mistaken but right now I'm not seeing it.....


You don't have to be greatful. I'm not! I'm just working with them as well as doing my own things to promote my guys, MT, and UK BBing as a whole.



> I come back to the fact that the UKBFF are going to LOSE money because some people will inevitably choose to go with the other federations.


Only time will tell.



> Ramsay makes a good point here. Not much to add to it except that we're really not getting any logical answers.


I would have hoped that I have attempted to provide some logical answers so far.



> They want us to be loyal but cant explain who that benefits or why
> 
> They claim its to further the sport but cant explain how it will


I was rather hoping I have put forward something here. Whether people choose to accpet this or not is up to them.



> Money is apparently required yet this move will cause them to lose some
> 
> There are a clear set of double standards where some competitors get banned or lose their qualifications and others are overlooked.


But I don't think it will.


----------



## Khaos1436114653 (Aug 28, 2009)

weeman said:


> what?!?!? you mean you have a life as well as posting on the forum? this simply wont do :lol: :lol:


x2 you must dedicate all your time to us:laugh:


----------



## Ex-SRD (Sep 9, 2008)

weeman said:


> what?!?!? you mean you have a life as well as posting on the forum? this simply wont do :lol: :lol:


I've actually got a forum as well as posting on this forum!!


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

Ex-SRD said:


> I'm sure you'll agree that the standard of this year's Finals was superb and if this upward trend can continue, it makes perfect sense that better standard means more audience. Moreover, this means better competition and competitors may thrive on this (obviously, I also accept there is a converse to this arguament too!)..


Couldnt afford to go to finals so can't comment :lol:

But my point is, what pays for this fantastic finals show? Where does the moeny come from? Surely a portion of it must come from interest generated at qualifiers and it all comes back to bums on seats - and bums on seats is directly tied to athletes on stage, ergo, les athletes, less money - thats what I am getting at.

Anyway you cut this new rule, it does not and will not generate more income to alledgedley invest in athletes. Conversely, allowing amateurs like myself freedom to compete in whichever federation we like without being penalised does not and cannot be detrimental to this funding.

Therefore, the key reasoning given by the UKBFF is a whitewash.

James, I really appreciate you trying to offer explanation as you have been given it, but I believe you have been fed a line. You are also being used as piggy in the middle, and I feel bad for that tbh. In this day and age where the internet affords maximum front/reach for minimal outlay, perhaps it would be prudent for an official of the UKBFF to get on here (or your board) and answer these criticisms, rather than letting you take the flak?



> If you choose not to go for these reasons, there will be some ****ing enjoyable shows you're missing out on, including the Body Power Expo.


No doubt, but principals can be a fkng powerful thing; I don't like letting anyone do me up the wrong un' without my say so, no matter how nice their face is.

If you catch my drift :lol:


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

Ex-SRD said:


> There will be 17 UKBFF qualifiers this year (I say 'this year' because the year started last weekend at the Hercules), which is two more than previously.


Damn thats a lot of potential stage time :thumbup1:

Still, prob no point now, I've openly been part of a crowd criticising the federation, probably be a red dot chasing me about on stage :lol:

TIme to switch to one of my alternate identities, Bourne styleee - thats just how I roll, yeahhh :thumbup1:


----------



## supercell (Aug 23, 2005)

rs007 said:


> Just thinking actually, to throw a flip side argument into the mix (playing devils advocate here).
> 
> As has been said, as an amateur, my priority is stage time return for my hard work on diet, not results per se.
> 
> ...


Indeed and a very good point. Probably the one thing that NABBA does that needs to be changed.

You get the same faces year in year out which IMO does nothing to push athletes and drive them to improve. You get the same faces at the finals year in year out from the various areas.

The UKBFF's policy of every qualifier being open to anyone from anywhere in the UK is a fantastic opportunity not only for athletes but also for the fans to see different physiques each year at different shows.

Plus now they have the 'open' class in each show so athletes that have already qualified can still compete without impacting on someone elses qualifying spot. If you wish you can compete at every show (you would have to be stark raving mad however to do that!)

For all the faults people are picking in the UKBFF, they also do have some superb policies which other feds could learn from.

I also want to personally thank James C for answering everyone's questions the best he can.

J


----------



## Greyphantom (Oct 23, 2003)

rs007 said:


> Damn thats a lot of potential stage time :thumbup1:
> 
> Still, prob no point now, I've openly been part of a crowd criticising the federation, *probably be a red dot chasing me about on stage* :lol:
> 
> TIme to switch to one of my alternate identities, Bourne styleee - thats just how I roll, yeahhh :thumbup1:


That will just add an edge to your posing routine mate...   you will just have to move faster... lol


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

supercell said:


> For all the faults people are picking in the UKBFF, they also do have some superb policies which other feds could learn from.
> 
> I also want to personally thank James C for answering everyone's questions the best he can.
> 
> J


Entirely agreed :thumbup1:


----------



## supercell (Aug 23, 2005)

Perhaps if NABBA provided more shows for their own members to compete within then there wouldn't be quite so much anomosity towards the UKBFF.

Just a thought.

J


----------



## Origin (Feb 5, 2009)

it would definitely be better if you didnt have to compete in-area with nabba...then everyone would be able to find their way around the loyalty rule.....hmmmmmmmm!!!! anyone suggested that to nabba?

I think the loyalty idea, though controversial, is understandable. Once you have a chance of getting somewhere in the federation, stay loyal to it for that year. Fair enough. Like it or lump it indeed.

Its this ban thing thats ridiculous. Means you cant do your local show along with your other qualifiers - if you do, you'll be banned for the next 2 years.....you dont get banned that long for death by dangerous driving!


----------



## fit1 (Mar 27, 2009)

supercell said:


> Indeed and a very good point. Probably the one thing that NABBA does that needs to be changed.
> 
> You get the same faces year in year out which IMO does nothing to push athletes and drive them to improve. *You get the same faces at the finals year* *in year out from the various areas.*
> 
> ...


----------



## fit1 (Mar 27, 2009)

Why would NABBA providing more shows stop anomosity to the UKBFF?

Also this thread is about a new Ukbff rule why are you trying to change it to what NABBA does as on this point Nabba dont ban athletes for 2 years?

Genuine questions not digs.


----------



## musclemorpheus (Sep 29, 2005)

But I thought you can compete out of your area in NABBA.. for example Tom Young from my gym competed in a Pro-am contest which was out of the area..but to actually qualify he did his local show to qualify for the NABBA BRITAIN..but there are some Pro-am shows that are in different areas..so more chance to compete if you want to...


----------



## supercell (Aug 23, 2005)

fit1 said:


> Why would NABBA providing more shows stop anomosity to the UKBFF?
> 
> Also this thread is about a new Ukbff rule why are you trying to change it to what NABBA does as on this point Nabba dont ban athletes for 2 years?
> 
> Genuine questions not digs.


It was an observation. Something that arose from the discussion on here.

Have NABBA thought about having qualifiers that anyone from any area can qualify in?

To have just one shot a year at competing in the National finals seems a bit limiting?

Yes I agree, pro-am's are a great way to get more people competing.

BTW fit1 do you have a name I can address you as?

J


----------



## miles2345 (Mar 26, 2008)

it says on the invite that they expect you to show loyalty, if you compete with another federation then the invite becomes void


----------



## colloseum (Oct 20, 2008)

supercell said:


> Indeed and a very good point. Probably the one thing that NABBA does that needs to be changed.
> 
> You get the same faces year in year out which IMO does nothing to push athletes and drive them to improve. You get the same faces at the finals year in year out from the various areas.
> 
> ...


I disagree, I think having to qualify at your area show, gives each area more prestige, otherwise we end up with shows like the South East, and Gravesend as weaker qualifiers because they are too far away from the finals. Years ago the South East used to be *THE* qualifier, the only show that held two qualifying places per class. But now we have all the best physiques in the South East competing at Leamington Spa and Birmingham, I understand that the UKBFF are trying to run as a business and so the priority is for bums on seats at the finals, but by this they have now turned the finals into a painfully arduous affair, two days, which were pretty much decided on the first, no less than 30 Classic competitors(yes 30 from how many qualifiers?) Routines from everyone apart from the two flagship classes(U100, O100) which absolutely killed it for me, there wasn't the usual atmosphere around the venue that there normally was, for me it just seemed diluted, considering that was the highest standard of bodybuilding since the early 90's I think the UKBFF took out all the stops to make this an unenjoyable experience for a competitor. Most of us are just simple working guys, They've had us book hotels for the whole weekend and buy tickets for both days, the F***ed half of them off on the Saturday without enough notice to cancel a room without getting charged, leaving us with a ticket and hotel room entirely surplus to requirements. Most of the guys are breaking the bank to be there, and they ask them to throw money away. With the current economy who can afford that? Loyalty is not the matter at stake here, this is about consideration..consideration of the british bodybuilding scene in general not just the top guys.


----------



## fit1 (Mar 27, 2009)

Hi James,

Sorry mate i kinda thought people new who i was on here, Mike Richards im Nabba rep for Wales and also Welsh president for Nabba Wales international.

As for area shows being closed to competitors living in that area theres loads of arguements for and against, the same arguements would be in place if discussing Ukbff shows being open, some will agree with it some not but at the end of the day it gives competitors choice. Being closed to areas didnt seem to hinder Nabba shows this year as like the Ukbff most shows this year had 50+ competitors and sell out audiences.Also we do have in place a system by which if you genuinely cannot do an area qualifier because of say illness, getting married, hospitalisation etc you can seek permission to compete out of area.We run two open shows per year on top of area qualifiers the Mr UK is a straight qualifier for the Britain and the Mr England is an open qualifier to the Universe.

On topic i would just like to state again where i am on this, as said earlier in the thread all assocciations have rules some are workable some not, i think the present rule For Ukbff which states that once qualified for the British champs an athlete is expected to be loyal or lose the qualification is workable and not an outragus rule to abide by,but to start banning athletes for 2 years is over the top.It doesnt just affect athletes i support all feds even though im a Nabba rep, i help prep many athletes for shows and encourage them to compete with whoever they want, i had athletes at Mikes show UKBFF qualifier in port talbot i also helped prep the novice winner at the BNBF Britain in Glasgow, the present rule allows me to work around the shows so that athletes get maximum chance to compete so all feds benefit, they are not being disloyal to any of us they just want to compete! with the new rule i cannot do this so will have to be selfish and encourage athletes to do my Nabba show and other shows that they wont get banned from, this is a pity because i just want to support all bodybuilding in the UK.

Cheers for now Mike.


----------



## Ex-SRD (Sep 9, 2008)

colloseum said:


> I disagree, I think having to qualify at your area show, gives each area more prestige, otherwise we end up with shows like the South East, and Gravesend as weaker qualifiers because they are too far away from the finals. Years ago the South East used to be *THE* qualifier, the only show that held two qualifying places per class. But now we have all the best physiques in the South East competing at Leamington Spa and Birmingham, I understand that the UKBFF are trying to run as a business and so the priority is for bums on seats at the finals, but by this they have now turned the finals into a painfully arduous affair, two days, which were pretty much decided on the first, no less than 30 Classic competitors(yes 30 from how many qualifiers?) Routines from everyone apart from the two flagship classes(U100, O100) which absolutely killed it for me, there wasn't the usual atmosphere around the venue that there normally was, for me it just seemed diluted, considering that was the highest standard of bodybuilding since the early 90's I think the UKBFF took out all the stops to make this an unenjoyable experience for a competitor. Most of us are just simple working guys, They've had us book hotels for the whole weekend and buy tickets for both days, the F***ed half of them off on the Saturday without enough notice to cancel a room without getting charged, leaving us with a ticket and hotel room entirely surplus to requirements. Most of the guys are breaking the bank to be there, and they ask them to throw money away. With the current economy who can afford that? Loyalty is not the matter at stake here, this is about consideration..consideration of the british bodybuilding scene in general not just the top guys.


You raise a valid point, but the issue of a 2 day event is a separate issue to the one being debated in this topic.


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

Thats a good well balanced post Mike (Fit1)

I personally dont like the NABBA rule of having to compete in area but Ive accepted it when competing in NABBA.

I do agree with the loyalty rule in regards to losing your qualification but banning I do think is too harsh.

hopefully some good will come of this and the rule will be recinded, we are all bbers and all want to compete we shouldnt be unduly punished for doing what we love.

Also on another thought surely the more shows people do the better they get at competing and so the overall quality would improve over time yes?


----------



## pea head (May 28, 2008)

Tinytom said:


> Thats a good well balanced post Mike (Fit1)
> 
> I personally dont like the NABBA rule of having to compete in area but Ive accepted it when competing in NABBA.
> 
> ...


Thats a good point tom :thumbup1:


----------



## supercell (Aug 23, 2005)

fit1 said:


> Hi James,
> 
> Sorry mate i kinda thought people new who i was on here, Mike Richards im Nabba rep for Wales and also Welsh president for Nabba Wales international.
> 
> ...


Thanks Mike.

Being from the UKBFF/IFBB I'm not really meant to talk to you, let alone know who you are. :lol: :lol:

Yes 2 years is harsh and agree that current policy is acceptable/workable if it can be policed, which then throws up a whole other issue/problem/can of worms etc...

Anyway I said I wasn't going to comment any more! :ban: :laugh:

J


----------



## Zara-Leoni (Mar 12, 2007)

Ex-SRD said:


> That is one perspective and a fine and logical one. But another perspective could be that *they hope to increase their loyalty and hence the quality of their competitors,* leading to better attendance from the public. This makes perfect buisness sense. Obviously, your arguamant is one that upsets everyone and few go for this reason. But, some will not see it that way.


James... firstly my points aren't intended to have a go at you... its just that you're the only poor bugger who is taking the time to try answer them, but rather they are intended to be aimed at "the powers that be" in the offchance that any of them reads this thread.....

But I don't get the bold bit.

How will me being loyal to the UKBFF make me a better competitor? :confused1:

If I dont do NABBA next year, I aint gonna be any better than if I do....



rs007 said:


> Anyway you cut this new rule, it does not and will not generate more income to alledgedley invest in athletes. Conversely, allowing amateurs like myself freedom to compete in whichever federation we like without being penalised does not and cannot be detrimental to this funding.
> 
> Therefore, the key reasoning given by the UKBFF is a whitewash.


Yup.



rs007 said:


> Damn thats a lot of potential stage time :thumbup1:
> 
> Still, prob no point now, I've openly been part of a crowd criticising the federation, probably be a red dot chasing me about on stage :lol:
> 
> TIme to switch to one of my alternate identities, Bourne styleee - thats just how I roll, yeahhh :thumbup1:


PMSL mate....

TBH... although I am kicking off a bit, I don't know what I'll do. I just don't like being dictated to, it sticks in my throat.

Why the hell shouldn't I do other feds? Who is it going to hurt.

Fair enough.... maybe tell people on whom they are actually spending money sending them abroad to compete, "we pay for you to go abroad, you must stay loyal and only do UKBFF for 2 years" or whatever.... but the rest of us.... Come on eh?

In fact this summed it up well......



rs007 said:


> No doubt, but principals can be a fkng powerful thing; I don't like letting anyone do me up the wrong un' without my say so, no matter how nice their face is.
> 
> If you catch my drift :lol:





supercell said:


> Indeed and a very good point. Probably the one thing that NABBA does that needs to be changed.


That and teach their judges the rules but thats another thread.... 



supercell said:


> You get the same faces year in year out which IMO does nothing to push athletes and drive them to improve. You get the same faces at the finals year in year out from the various areas.
> 
> J


This is true in Scotland. But then we're all inbred.....  :lol:


----------



## Zara-Leoni (Mar 12, 2007)

Zara-Leoni said:


> How will me being loyal to the UKBFF make me a better competitor? :confused1:
> 
> If I dont do NABBA next year, I aint gonna be any better than if I do....





Tinytom said:


> Also on another thought surely the more shows people do the better they get at competing and so the overall quality would improve over time yes?


Thats what I meant above but you worded it far better....


----------



## GBLiz (Jul 9, 2004)

Zara-Leoni said:


> Fair enough.... maybe tell people on whom they are actually spending money sending them abroad to compete, "we pay for you to go abroad, you must stay loyal and only do UKBFF for 2 years" or whatever.... but the rest of us.... Come on eh?
> 
> In  :lol:


That i could understand completely. I'm not anti UKBFF at all, like Fit1 I support ALL bodybuilding federations, I think the UKBFF is doing a great job with more opportunities for athletes going abroad etc, i also know they have to go along with IFBB rules, I just think its a terrible shame when they take what was already a controversial rule, and slam a load more on top of it! Its a shame because i dont want either federation to be wiped out!

I know Nabba shouldnt have to change , but if the UKBFF stick to this new ruling, would it be worth considering having the NABBA finals AFTER the UKBFF finals?? then we wouldnt all be forced into deciding one or the other...


----------



## Zara-Leoni (Mar 12, 2007)

GBLiz said:


> That i could understand completely. I'm not anti UKBFF at all, like Fit1 I support ALL bodybuilding federations, I think the UKBFF is doing a great job with more opportunities for athletes going abroad etc, i also know they have to go along with IFBB rules, I just think its a terrible shame when they take what was already a controversial rule, and slam a load more on top of it! Its a shame because i dont want either federation to be wiped out!
> 
> I know Nabba shouldnt have to change , but if the UKBFF stick to this new ruling, would it be worth considering having the NABBA finals AFTER the UKBFF finals?? then we wouldnt all be forced into deciding one or the other...


We were discussing this in the gym tonight as when I went in I was explaining to the other guys who are competing next year what the story is and what they are going to have to do etc.... to say there was an uproar is an understatement..... :whistling: "exceptionally p1ssed off" I think would be the phrase and many swear words were used lol....

Anyway I digress.... We discussed if the NABBA Britain was after the UKBFF Brits... but TBH if they were going to do such a thing then it would mean everyone doing 2 diets even if they're not competing with the UKBFF. Currently with NABBA you don't have long to keep on diet once you qualify....

Plus as you say they shouldn't have to rearrange their schedule around another fed and I think it would be wrong if they did.

I may have figured a way around it for myself.... and this may help people in Scotland but its not good for the organisers of the UKBFF Scottish unfortunately....

14th May NABBA Scotland

If DO qualify for the NABBA Britain then DO NOT do the UKBFF Scottish, do the NABBA Britain end of May, then later on enter UKBFF qualifiers in England and attempt to qualify for UKBFF British then.

If DONT qualify with NABBA then go ahead and do the UKBFF Scottish on 2nd May and any subsequent qualifiers you desire afterwards to try qualify for UKBFF Brits.

After UKBFF Brits are free to do NABBA England (on the sunday if dont make top 10 :wink: )/NABBA UK etc if so desire.

Next year.... start again :thumbup1:

Now as I say... this is bollox for organisers of UKBFF Scottish so my suggestion to them if their numbers start to fall as a result of the rule, is to move the show to the weekend after the NABBA Britain, otherwise I am guessing everyone will just start doing the new UKBFF Aberdeen show instead of the Paisley one for this very reason 

Simples


----------



## supercell (Aug 23, 2005)

Indeed. Move the Scottish UKBFF and bobs ya uncle. Go girl.

HOWEVER prob too late for 2010 as I know venues have to be booked early to avoid disappointment!

So NABBA early in the year up to end of May, then UKBFF all the way to the middle of Oct then NABBA UK and Uni after?

Sounds great but I think that the feds wouldn't be quite so forgiving. Plus you have the Hercules and the Stars at the end of the year ready for qualification for next years finals.

Reckon keeping it as it is would be best and people can make up their own mind what they do.

Good ideas tho. And I think moving the Scottish UKBFF would be wise.

J


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

got to thinking last night and i believe from a legal standpoint you cannot ban someone from an amateur event i think NABBA tried this with Eddy Ellwood once and he took them to court and won.....i have a mate who is a barrister so will check it with him...


----------



## Origin (Feb 5, 2009)

paul i expect you can ban someone if they break rules of conduct.....? like a gym can ban anyone if they want to ?

definitely sounds a better idea to move the ukbff scottish and portsmouth (and irish?)...as for stars and colchester, well thats usually people that have done the finals or others who have their sights set on qualifying early for the UKBFF finals, so they would have had to be loyal all year anyway.....there are plenty of later shows in the south east

wonder if davy realises he could have shot himself in the foot here???


----------



## GBLiz (Jul 9, 2004)

oops that was me said that ^^^ dont want to get the other half mixed up in this- he has a classic class to win next year! ;-)


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Kami i am not sure this is true as their is no legal contract in place but will check as i am not 100% sure


----------



## Ex-SRD (Sep 9, 2008)

Origin said:


> wonder if davy realises he could have shot himself in the foot here???


How could Davy have done that?


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Ex-SRD said:


> How could Davy have done that?


i think the reason this has been said is that those who want to do the NABBA finals will not do Davy's show but wait for a qualifier after the NABBA finals


----------



## Ex-SRD (Sep 9, 2008)

Pscarb said:


> i think the reason this has been said is that those who want to do the NABBA finals will not do Davy's show but wait for a qualifier after the NABBA finals


Oh, so do you mean Davy has shot himself in the foot with the timing of his show?


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

i don't mean anything just offering a suggestion to why this has been said....i think more guys compete in NABBA in Scotland than the UKBFF this may be the reason Davy might suffer from this Loyalty rule.....

have you managed to get an answer to how not being loyal effects the UKBFF financially James


----------



## Origin (Feb 5, 2009)

Ex-SRD said:


> Oh, so do you mean Davy has shot himself in the foot with the timing of his show?


yes what i meant was , by referring Harry to be a north scotland rep, who presumably would run a later show, he may have taken a load of competitors away from his show....

most people do the ukbff scottish because its within a week or two of the nabba , but the main event tends to be the nabba britain. This was obviously starting to shift a little since there was a ukbff presence in scotland, remember its only been going 3 years IIRC. If people continue as they have, 2011's paisley show will not have any competitors- they'll all be banned:ban: :whistling:

Thats not to say there shouldnt be a north scotland show- there should! Its a big enough place for AT LEAST 2 qualifiers


----------



## Origin (Feb 5, 2009)

just for the record, our gym Enterprise sponsors both local UKBFF and NABBA and BNBF shows:thumb: :thumb: the more shows the better!!


----------



## Ex-SRD (Sep 9, 2008)

MT also sponsors other fed shows!!

I see what you mean, Kami, cheers.



> have you managed to get an answer to how not being loyal effects the UKBFF financially James


Paul, I have not even spoken to them this week, mate. And I doubt I will this week. I need to collate the salient points from this topic too, and that's a task I haven't had time for being the end of the month deadlines, etc. I will do when I can.


----------



## Musclewriter (Aug 31, 2008)

I thought the two-year rule only applied to competitors selected to compete internationally...


----------



## willsey4 (Apr 21, 2008)

Musclewriter said:


> I thought the two-year rule only applied to competitors selected to compete internationally...


Nope...

Nationally!


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Musclewriter said:


> I thought the two-year rule only applied to competitors selected to compete internationally...


this would make more sense


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

Pscarb said:


> this would make more sense


This was the way the intial statement I saw was worded - that it would ban you from being invited abroad etc which I can totally understand, because at that point they are investing money in the athlete.

I can't remember where I seen it now. That would make a lot more sense IMO.


----------



## LittleChris (Jan 17, 2009)

:lol: Well I enjoyed the debate anyway


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

still need clarification though, things like this need to be crystal and not open to interpretation..


----------



## Origin (Feb 5, 2009)

James posted this on muscletalk (and here i think)

This in an offical annoucement on behalf of the UKBFF:

Any competitor who competes in another federation will not be considered to be sent to the Arnold Classic by the UKBFF for 2 years. This is because next year the UKBFF are sending more UK competitors at considerable expense and wish to encourage federation loyalty

i would have thought james would have corrected us by now if this is the rule he meant.


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

Origin said:


> i would have thought james would have corrected us by now if this is the rule he meant.


 :lol:

If this is the rule, there are a lot of knickers been twisted unnecessarily   

All good entertainment


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

This is what James wrote in post 23 of this thread



suave looking avatar [URL=dude:]dude:[/URL] said:


> Just to clarify:
> 
> *The rules is if you qualify for the UKBFF Finals from any qualifier, then compete in a show with another federation, then you will lose your place in the Finals and will not be allowed to compete with the UKBFF for 2 years.*
> 
> ...


So still in drastic need of clarification.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

that above RS is very different than this quote below......so this does need clarifying



Origin said:


> James posted this on muscletalk (and here i think)
> 
> This in an offical annoucement on behalf of the UKBFF:
> 
> ...


----------



## Musclewriter (Aug 31, 2008)

My impression is based on a conversation with Bill and Wanda last weekend.

The UKBFF is now spending considerably much more money on sending competitors abroad - to the Arnold, the Worlds, the Europeans and the World Masters and Juniors. In return it expects, not unreasonably, that those selected stay loyal to the UKBFF for two years.

If anyone can confirm this isn't the case I'd be grateful because this is what I intend to write for FLEX!


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

Musclewriter said:


> My impression is based on a conversation with Bill and Wanda last weekend.
> 
> The UKBFF is now spending considerably much more money on sending competitors abroad - to the Arnold, the Worlds, the Europeans and the World Masters and Juniors. In return it expects, not unreasonably, that those selected stay loyal to the UKBFF for two years.
> 
> If anyone can confirm this isn't the case I'd be grateful because this is what I intend to write for FLEX!


I think that is more reasonable than what has been said previous.

If someone paid for me to go to the USA then sure id stay loyal to them in return.


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

Tinytom said:


> I think that is more reasonable than what has been said previous.
> 
> If someone paid for me to go to the USA then sure id stay loyal to them in return.


Yep that is definitely reasonable, don't think anyone would disagree...

Except don't NABBA spend a fortune sending folks around the place too :whistling:

:lol:


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

defo throws a different spin on things and the sooner its cleared up the better so us athletes know where we stand!!

And yes,good point buy Rams,NABBA still do the smae thing,spend a small fortune but yet dont feel the need to ban........


----------



## Ex-SRD (Sep 9, 2008)

I'll get clarification next week - hope that's ok


----------



## GBLiz (Jul 9, 2004)

for everyones sake i hope we've got our wires crossed!!

thanks james


----------



## Mike Gelsei (Mar 10, 2008)

Yes everyone - it is definate - the rule is only for those competitors that go on to compete INTERNATIONALLY.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Mike Gelsei said:


> Yes everyone - it is definate - the rule is only for those competitors that go on to compete INTERNATIONALLY.


Thanks Mike and this is totally understandable if the UKBFF is going to invest the money in taking these athletes to international shows then they should expect some loyalty in return.....

So this clarification below is wrong then??....nice little hornets nest that stirred up:whistling: :thumb:



Ex-SRD said:


> Just to clarify:
> 
> The rules is if you qualify for the UKBFF Finals from any qualifier, then compete in a show with another federation, then you will lose your place in the Finals and will not be allowed to compete with the UKBFF for 2 years.
> 
> ...


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

Does the rule still stand for everyone else that if you qualify for the finals and compete in another fed then you lose your place in the finals but are free to requalify in another qualifier?


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

Tar and feathers at the read for Mr C :lol:


----------



## Ex-SRD (Sep 9, 2008)

Thanks Mike - yes you'd know better than I.

Next time I go passing info on, I will ensure I am *fully* armed with the facts. Partial arming hasn't done anyone any favours; least of all, me!

I will go through this topic next week anyway, and get clarification on any other issues raised.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Thanks James your help in trying to clarify not just this one but all UKBFF issues is appreciated


----------



## Mike Gelsei (Mar 10, 2008)

Domestically the rules will still be the same - if you have qualified for the finals and then compete with another federation you must re-qualify.

The 2 year 'ban' only applies to athletes that compete abroad.

One thing I will say if anyone has any issues with the UKBFF that they are unsure about please feel free to ask. Ring the UKBFF for clarification or ask people like myself or James, we may not have the answers straight away but we find out. Also, don't forget any members of the UKBFF are entitled to attend the AGM - if you want to air any opinions please come along.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Mike Gelsei said:


> Domestically the rules will still be the same - if you have qualified for the finals and then compete with another federation you must re-qualify.
> 
> The 2 year 'ban' only applies to athletes that compete abroad.
> 
> One thing I will say if anyone has any issues with the UKBFF that they are unsure about please feel free to ask. Ring the UKBFF for clarification or ask people like myself or James, we may not have the answers straight away but we find out. Also, don't forget any members of the UKBFF are entitled to attend the AGM - if you want to air any opinions please come along.


Mike just like James we all appreciate you coming on the board to help clarify these things for the members.....when and where is the next AGM


----------



## GBLiz (Jul 9, 2004)

happy days!!!!!

im so glad the rumour isnt true, i can forgive james for misleading us all lol. ooh i can do davys show now! 

mike, do you know have the ukbff got a different email address to the one on the website as we have trouble getting a response from there....


----------



## Ex-SRD (Sep 9, 2008)

Mike Gelsei said:


> Domestically the rules will still be the same - if you have qualified for the finals and then compete with another federation you must re-qualify.
> 
> The 2 year 'ban' only applies to athletes that compete abroad.
> 
> One thing I will say if anyone has any issues with the UKBFF that they are unsure about please feel free to ask. Ring the UKBFF for clarification or ask people like myself or James, we may not have the answers straight away but we find out. Also, don't forget any members of the UKBFF are entitled to attend the AGM - if you want to air any opinions please come along.


Yes, I am happy to help. But, as this topic has oh-so-well demonstrated :whistling: , I'm very much new to working with the UKBFF and am still getting my head around the functioning; thus Mike is much more au fait with the system.


----------



## supercell (Aug 23, 2005)

Good work guys.

Everyone's a winner!!!

Thanks Mike for clarification.

I think we will all agree, a good result for bodybuilders and bodybuilding in the UK.

J


----------



## popeye1 (May 20, 2007)

Pscarb said:


> the rule is (i believe) is that if you qualify for the UKBFF Finals then you cannot compete at any other federation show if you do then you will lose your invite to the UKBFF finals and then would need to re-qualify......
> 
> i think this is fairer than saying you cannot compete in another federation no matter what....


all good and well put i lost my invite because i did the staffs open which was not a fed show so they need 2 make it very clear what they mean and stick 2 it.ak47


----------



## Zara-Leoni (Mar 12, 2007)

Well thank heavens for that eh? 

All good then.... Dont have to miss any shows :thumb: :thumbup1: :rockon:


----------



## Mike Gelsei (Mar 10, 2008)

Always happy to help. I will let everyone know when and where the AGM is in due course - for anyone that wants to attend.

As far as contacting the UKBFF via the email address goes - the website is being completely re-vamped at the moment, so contact may be a little difficult at the moment but will resume shortly.


----------

