Billy Walsh quits ** SEE MOD WARNING #643 BEFORE POSTING

slow

slow wrote: »

Boxing fans don't determine funding. The Irish Sports Council does. Boxing has been seen as something of a special case as there's always the temptation for the top guys to turn pro for short term gain. Billy Walsh is seen by many as one who kept our best boxers in the amateur ranks for Ireland's gain.

I am sad to see him go. Whoever fills his shoes will have a tough job. And I wouldn't like to be the person going into the ISC to negotiate the wages or contract duration for Walsh's successor...

A sure sign of madness is talking to yourself. I posted the above two months ago. I've never been so sorry to be proven right.

efb

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Any white smoke from Dublin 6 yet? Maybe there's an executive meeting tonight?

Dublin 8 no?

Joe_ Public

efb wrote: »

Dublin 8 no?

Ah yes, good spot! Doubt the honest toilers of the South Circular Road would want to be associated with the noveau riche of Dublin 6!

efb

The IABA reneged on a six-part agreement with the Sports Council over Billy Walsh’s employment terms, according to documents seen by The Irish Times.
Walsh, who left for Colorado Springs on Thursday morning to take up a role with the US Olympic Committee, had agreed terms worth at least €95,000 annually plus bonuses at a meeting in August only to see it withdrawn within days.
The Memorandum of Agreement between the two bodies was drawn up in an attempt to see off the offer from USOC, which had been made six months previously. The offer from America is believed to be worth more than double that amount with provisions for a pension, health insurance and flights back to Ireland included.

Joe_ Public

"IABA president Pat Ryan has told The Irish Times that they are aiming to hold a press conference on Friday to take questions on the matter."

This is my favourite bit from that report. They are "aiming" to hold a press conference, although I don't believe they've ever held one before so would represent a major achievement for them Let's all cross our fingers and hope they succeed in this hugely ambitions endeavour.

Ctrl Alt Delete

If that is true and a memorandum was agreed and drawn up then the IABA should rightly have all of their administration funding pulled until they get their house in order

jd

Joe_ Public wrote: »

"IABA president Pat Ryan has told The Irish Times that they are aiming to hold a press conference on Friday "

Maybe they need to find a few lawyers to read over their statement

Dodge

http://www.iaba.ie/iaba-position-re-resignation-of-billy-walsh/

IABA statement. They say they returned contract as agreed to Walsh and he didn't reply.

case885

Tune into radio 1.

Joe_ Public

Dodge wrote: »

IABA statement. They say they returned contract as agreed to Walsh and he didn't reply.

Yes but was it the same contract that had been agreed with the ISC? Isn't that the burning question?

Joe_ Public

case885 wrote: »

Tune into radio 1.

Only caught the end of it. One of the panellists seemed to be verging on a "but Roy think about the kids" moment.

price690

Jesus that was one cranky presenter, seemed like he couldn't wait to put an end to that discussion.

Basically the IABA reckon Walsh was motivated by money.

Any good lawyer hear would tell you they played it perfectly, attack the ISC here rather than Walsh.

Whether they are right or wrong (I highly suspect they got exactly what they wanted in Walsh leaving), the best way for a kangaroo committee to survive is to sling mud at another bastion of ineptitude, in this case the ISC. And hope it sticks.

Dodge

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yes but was it the same contract that had been agreed with the ISC? Isn't that the burning question?

If the contract was agreed between Walsh (and his solicitors) and the IABA, then that's all that matters (to me)

EDIT; Should say I don't think anyone comes out of this with credit. IABA are clearly well meaning amateurs. ISC are clearly power hungry. Walsh is clearly an egomaniac.

Shame it had to happen at all

Joe_ Public

Dodge wrote: »

If the contract was agreed between Walsh (and his solicitors) and the IABA, then that's all that matters (to me)

EDIT; Should say I don't think anyone comes out of this with credit. IABA are clearly well meaning amateurs. ISC are clearly power hungry. Walsh is clearly an egomaniac.

Shame it had to happen at all

But we have yet to get Billy Walsh's version of the contract negotiations. If he refused to sign the document that was sent to him by the IABA, then - should he choose to respond - he might tell us why. I believe then we might be able to come close to a definitive judgement on this whole sorry mess, if even that's important anymore.

price690

Dodge wrote: »

If the contract was agreed between Walsh (and his solicitors) and the IABA, then that's all that matters (to me)

EDIT; Should say I don't think anyone comes out of this with credit. IABA are clearly well meaning amateurs. ISC are clearly power hungry. Walsh is clearly an egomaniac.

Shame it had to happen at all

Pretty fishy though that the IABA waited until Walsh had crossed the Atlantic before going into more detail though.

They also gave themselves plenty of time to get a version of events together that's palatable.

We will probably never know what was shook on between Walsh and IABA. They claim Walsh kept asking for amendments to his own agreement, which they caved in to. I highly doubt they did. It could be the case the contract agreed with Walsh and the one actually delivered, were very different agreements. But we will never know as its one mans word against the other.

The IABA have a history of shafting people so I'd say they are smugly resolute behind their statement this morning. A statement that hit all the buttons in terms of turning it around to deflect attention from themselves. Grass roots must be mentioned 10 times, for a very Dublin centred organisation I find this quite funny.

Joe_ Public

price690 wrote: »

Pretty fishy though that the IABA waited until Walsh had crossed the Atlantic before going into more detail though.

They also gave themselves plenty of time to get a version of events together that's palatable.

We will probably never know what was shook on between Walsh and IABA. They claim Walsh kept asking for amendments to his own agreement, which they caved in to. I highly doubt they did. It could be the case the contract agreed with Walsh and the one actually delivered, were very different agreements. But we will never know as its one mans word against the other.

The IABA have a history of shafting people so I'd say they are smugly resolute behind their statement this morning. A statement that hit all the buttons in terms of turning it around to deflect attention from themselves. Grass roots must be mentioned 10 times, for a very Dublin centred organisation I find this quite funny.

Yes, for one thing it seems clear the negotiations weren't centred around one consistent document. There is tooing and froing, amendments being inserted, the sands shifting all the time. We still have only a series of broken, fragmented pieces here, far from the full picture. Not that I anticipated it anyway.

efb

Paying the boxers is a red herring, they Cannot be given monetary reward

Dodge

efb wrote: »

Paying the boxers is a red herring, they Cannot be given monetary reward

Many of them already do get monetary reward. Joe Ward for example fought in the APB championship. The P is for Professional. The WSB boxers (Conlan, Barnes et al) aren't doing it for nothing either

jd

Was what Joe Christle and Billy Walsh "shook on" the same as was posted to Billy? That's the question to be answered for me.

efb

Dodge wrote: »

Many of them already do get monetary reward. Joe Ward for example fought in the APB championship. The P is for Professional. The WSB boxers (Conlan, Barnes et al) aren't doing it for nothing either

They are getting grants based on performance but in the Olympics can't be actually paid a bonus for medal

price690

Dodge wrote: »

Many of them already do get monetary reward. Joe Ward for example fought in the APB championship. The P is for Professional. The WSB boxers (Conlan, Barnes et al) aren't doing it for nothing either

Conlan and Barnes were not paid for WSB only travel costs covered, thats on the record

http://www.irish-boxing.com/barnes-conaln-and-i-were-the-only-fighters-not-to-get-paid-in-wsb/

Whether its true or not, im not sure obviously

Joe_ Public

price690 wrote: »

Conlan and Barnes were not paid for WSB only travel costs covered, thats on the record

Whether its true or not, im not sure obviously

Didn't Paddy Barnes insist on getting paid by the IABA when they fought against France a couple of years ago? I'm hazy on the details but there was a fuss about it at the time. Anyway, I don't begrudge the boxers any extra income they get, fully deserve it as top class sportsman, and don't see why it's that relevant to any of the current issues.

Henno30

Shurimgreat wrote: »

People indeed have drawn their conclusions. They've concluded the IABA are hopeless and not fit for purpose.

The Americans who routinely come top of Olympics medals tables and are the recognised powerhouse of the Olympics headhunted Walsh and were prepared to do what it took to get him.

You must not have looked at any boxing medal tables lately.

Joe_ Public

Yes, but it's precisely because they're languishing in those tables that they seem to be desperate to get Billy in.

brooke 2

Darkest Horse wrote: »

As a boxing outsider and someone who prefers to listen to both sides of the story, this is a tragedy in sporting terms, regardless of the circumstances. How this man was allowed to be lost is beyond me. In my opinion, his achievements put him in a position to rightly name his price and the approaches from other international organisations should have motivated the powers that be to do anything to keep him here. This would be easier to swallow if it weren't right in the middle of an Olympic cycle and by not matching the offer of the Americans, we now stand to lose exponentially more in the long run. This is a joke.

Say, for the sake of argument, the Americans offered $2m to Billy (crazy money was mentioned after all!) after the recent successes at Doha, especially Michael Conlan's gold medal win, do you think we should match it? If our government decided to spend 'crazy' money like that to hold on to Billy, how do you think that would go down with the general public?

walshb

Like I said. This was and is about money. And no amount of ISC disguising and deflecting and covering changes that. Whoever was footing the bill is irrelevant. Billy wanted X, and theIABA likely didn't believe he was worthy of it. No matter who stepped in to pay it may not have been enough for the IABA. It began about money and it ended about money. These issues mostly do. All the autonomy and other stuff was just a part of the mess. The IABA and Walsh have given their sides of this mess. I see no winners here, and for me the ISC come out the worst

price690

walshb wrote: »

Like I said. This was and is about money. And no amount of ISC disguising and deflecting and covering changes that. Whoever was footing the bill is irrelevant. Billy wanted X, and theIABA likely didn't believe he was worthy of it. No matter who stepped in to pay it may not have been enough for the IABA. It began about money and it ended about money. These issues mostly do. All the autonomy and other stuff was just a part of the mess. The IABA and Walsh have given their sides of this mess. I see no winners here, and for me the ISC come out the worst

Ah yes, no reading between any lines with you this morning. Seems you were just waiting for the IABA's side and whatever they say is fact.

brooke 2

pac_man wrote: »

It's quite easy to slate IABA saying they fcuked up so I wouldn't mind hearing what they've got to say. It will probably be just a wishy washy statement wishing Walsh all the best in his future endeavours.

Joe Chrystal was certainly not 'wishy washy' this morning! I would describe Kieran Mulvey's useless contribution as such!!

Clearlier

walshb wrote: »

Like I said. This was and is about money. And no amount of ISC disguising and deflecting and covering changes that. Whoever was footing the bill is irrelevant. Billy wanted X, and theIABA likely didn't believe he was worthy of it. No matter who stepped in to pay it may not have been enough for the IABA. It began about money and it ended about money. These issues mostly do. All the autonomy and other stuff was just a part of the mess. The IABA and Walsh have given their sides of this mess. I see no winners here, and for me the ISC come out the worst

Well, the ISC said that it wasn't about money and Billy Walsh said that it wasn't about money. It wasn't the IABA's money so had no impact on them so we should accept their assertion that it was about money?

There are nearly as many holes in their statement as there are in a sieve. They are playing a political game though and no doubt the end result will be some kind of fudge.

Joe_ Public

The money thing is beginning to get on my wick. Nobody is saying it isn't part of it, but when Billy Walsh says it wasn't the ultimate reason why he walked away, why do people try to say he's effectively lying?

The Americans were offering him twice the salary he was on here, including benefits (that's in Irish Times today.) Walsh says he was happy to accept the lower offer the IABA were offering, that it was the ancillary conditions that were the stumbling block. Is he lying?

There are set guidelines in Irish sport as to what these positions are paid. So much for a head coach, more for a performance director. By refusing to elevate him to his proper title of director, the IABA were ensuring Walsh was only paid the smaller salary of 77k, a situation Walsh tolerated so he could stay and do the job he loved. I believe he would have been fully entitled to test that in a tribunal if he was so inclined.

super_furry

Some serious agendas here. Some people willing to take everything the IABA as gospel and dismiss everything Billy Walsh, The Minister for Sport and The Irish Sporting Council say.

I personally think it's telling that the IABA waited until Billy was out of the country before saying anything.

brooke 2

efb wrote: »

Surely as head he would be best placed- and not the IABA all picking their own club boxers???

Apparently, the IABA chose Paddy Barnes who won a silver medal at the Olympics.

efb

brooke 2 wrote: »

Apparently, the IABA chose Paddy Barnes who won a silver medal at the Olympics.

Paddy never won an Olympic silver medal.

Nothing to say Billy's team wouldn't have picked him either

walshb

super_furry wrote: »

Some serious agendas here. Some people willing to take everything the IABA as gospel and dismiss everything Billy Walsh, The Minister for Sport and The Irish Sporting Council say.

I personally think it's telling that the IABA waited until Billy was out of the country before saying anything.

No, as mentioned by a poster it's Billy's version vs. the IABAs version. Who you choose to believe is your right. Me, I reckon Billy was probably given a rough ride, but maybe he too was a little stubborn and demanding. It blew up from there.

efb

walshb wrote: »

Like I said. This was and is about money. And no amount of ISC disguising and deflecting and covering changes that. Whoever was footing the bill is irrelevant. Billy wanted X, and theIABA likely didn't believe he was worthy of it. No matter who stepped in to pay it may not have been enough for the IABA. It began about money and it ended about money. These issues mostly do. All the autonomy and other stuff was just a part of the mess. The IABA and Walsh have given their sides of this mess. I see no winners here, and for me the ISC come out the worst

Oh you are certain? Where's your proof???

Not surprised you would paint the ISC in the worst light...

But tell me a boxer that knows when he's beaten...

Joe_ Public

efb wrote: »

Paddy never won an Olympic silver medal.

Nothing to say Billy's team wouldn't have picked him either

It was the World Champs in 2007 when he reached the quarters. Yes that was a slip-up in the HP unit, that proved they were only human at the time.

brooke 2

walshb wrote: »

You know, maybe all this talk of picking boxers etc is just a smoke screen from what these issues are almost always about, money!

If it is about the money, which I believe it might be, Billy could not very well say so! Imagine admitting you were abandoning Irish boxing for filthy lucre!! Liveline would be hopping!!

efb

brooke 2 wrote: »

Joe Chrystal was certainly not 'wishy washy' this morning! I would describe Kieran Mulvey's useless contribution as such!!

Kieran Mulvey is fair more qualified to speak than the nepotism ridden IABA

He has brokered many successful pay agreements

walshb

Clearlier wrote: »

Well, the ISC said that it wasn't about money and Billy Walsh said that it wasn't about money. It wasn't the IABA's money so had no impact on them so we should accept their assertion that it was about money?

There are nearly as many holes in their statement as there are in a sieve. They are playing a political game though and no doubt the end result will be some kind of fudge.

Billy said it was never 'really' about money. Don't be so naive.

efb

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yes, but it's precisely because they're languishing in those tables that they seem to be desperate to get Billy in.

Lucky our team can do it without him, silly yanks!!!

efb

walshb wrote: »

Billy said it was never 'really' about money. Don't be so naive.

That's what your argument is based on. Are you calling Billy a liar so?

walshb

efb wrote: »

Oh you are certain? Where's your proof???

Not surprised you would paint the ISC in the worst light...

But tell me a boxer that knows when he's beaten...

There is no real proof for us posters . Just like you have no proof that it wasn't about money. Money was most certainly an issue. How important an issue us a belief, not a fact. The IABA seem to be saying it was a main issue. The other side say it's not. Who we believe us up to us. I think it was the main issue. Now, to be clear, who was right or wrong as regards the financial side is also up to people to decide on.

price690

walshb wrote: »

Billy said it was never 'really' about money. Don't be so naive.

The ISC were footing the cost. So his wages were not an issue. Its simple, ISC cover the cost of his pay. They have stated this on numerous occasions.

He was not leaving because his wage demands were not met, they were. its not a case he backed the IABA into a corner and they simply couldn't afford it. They were not dipping into their own coffers.

If the IABA simply didn't have the funds to pay him and his demands were excessive then your argument would hold more weight. They were not footing the bill.

walshb

efb wrote: »

That's what your argument is based on. Are you calling Billy a liar so?

No. I am quoting him.

Would you call the IABA liars for claiming money was the motivation?

efb

walshb wrote: »

There is no real proof for us posters . Just like you have no proof that ut wasn't about money. Money was most certainly an issue. How important an issue us a belief, not a fact. The IABA seem to be saying it was a main issue. The other side say it's not. Who we believe us up to us. I think it was the main issue. Now, to be clear, who was right or wrong as regards the financial side is also up to people to decide on.

You can't prove a negative. Its not up to me to disprove your hypothesis- the onus is on you to prove it

efb

walshb wrote: »

No. I am quoting him.

Well if you believe it was, and he sad it wasn't really - what would you call that???

walshb

price690 wrote: »

The ISC were footing the cost. So his wages were not an issue. Its simple, ISC cover the cost of his pay. They have stated this on numerous occasions.

He was not leaving because his wage demands were not met, they were. its not a case he backed the IABA into a corner and they simply couldn't afford it. They were not dipping into their own coffers.

If the IABA simply didn't have the funds to pay him and his demands were excessive then your argument would hold more weight. They were not footing the bill.

Them not footing the bill is irrelevant. Did you not read my post. Whoever was paying, the IABA it seems were not happy with the package.

Joe_ Public

To say this is just about money basically exonerates the IABA, lets them off the hook completely. I mean, who's being the naive ones here?

brooke 2

Tobyglen wrote: »

Shambles, muppets in the IABA- wouldn't even go on newstalk when asked to explain the situation. Walsh has done an incredible job and is a honest bloke- give him everything he needs.

So, match the few million the Americans may have offered him? How would that go down with the general public? People today complaining about a doctor who earned €700,000+ last year!!

walshb

efb wrote: »

Well if you believe it was, and he sad it wasn't really - what would you call that???

I quoted him. What I infer from it is neither provable or not provable. I think the statement is open to individual interpretation.