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

Joe_ Public

walshb wrote: »

The most pertinent point in all this is that Billy is IABA. Has been for so many years. He's part of the furniture. It is like his family. Both Billy and IABA lose here.

Totally agree but I also believe that only one side truly knows how much he's lost (hint - it's not the one who is presently away on business).

walshb

efb wrote: »

The boxers lose the most

They too are part of the family.

Strazdas

walshb wrote: »

The most pertinent point in all this is that Billy is IABA. Has been for so many years. He's part of the furniture. It is like his family. Both Billy and IABA lose here.

It should never have come to this. Routine stuff like pay and contractual arrangements should have been sorted out behind the scenes without us ever hearing about it. It's very telling that outside bodies like the ISC and Minister for Sport got involved over a prolonged period and even they couldn't sort out the mess. The IABA can dress it up whatever way they like and get involved in the blame game, but losing a world class coach was a catastrophic failure on their part.

Donald Trump

I heard on RTE 1 radio earlier today that Billy Walsh felt that he was being used as a pawn in a power struggle between the IABA and the ISC.

Can't remember what show, or who it was, for definite, but I think they were talking to Vincent Hogan at the time. Maybe someone else here heard it too.

I do think that is a very plausible scenario (Not that it absolves either party if there were other mistakes made).

ISC should hit the road and keep their noses out in my opinion. Others can of course feel otherwise.

(Am open to correction if I misheard or got names wrong)

Donald Trump

Found it here

www . rte . ie / radio1 / this-week /

It was Vincent Hogan

I had to put spaces in the above as it said I can't post links

barney4001

Tiriel wrote: »

That just brings you to the main news page, do you mean this article?
http://m.rte.ie/sport/boxing/2015/1024/737234-billy-walsh-iaba/

yes thats it thanks

Joe_ Public

Donald Trump wrote: »

I heard on RTE 1 radio earlier today that Billy Walsh felt that he was being used as a pawn in a power struggle between the IABA and the ISC.

Can't remember what show, or who it was, for definite, but I think they were talking to Vincent Hogan at the time. Maybe someone else here heard it too.

I do think that is a very plausible scenario (Not that it absolves either party if there were other mistakes made).

ISC should hit the road and keep their noses out in my opinion. Others can of course feel otherwise.

(Am open to correction if I misheard or got names wrong)

I don't know if Billy Walsh thinks that, regardless of what any journalist says, it's not something he ever hinted at in the many interviews and statements he's given at this point. What he has clearly said is that he sought to open negotiations with the IABA eight months ago but was of the opinion they were satisfied to see him go. The ISC only came along when discussions between Billy and the IABA had broken down. WIthout ISC intervention, we never even reach the point where apparent agreements can be made. I seriously doubt it would be Billy's view that he was some kind of "pawn" in a chess game, no suggestion of it ever emanated from his mouth anyway.

Donald Trump

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I don't know if Billy Walsh thinks that, regardless of what any journalist says, it's not something he ever hinted at in the many interviews and statements he's given at this point. What he has clearly said is that he sought to open negotiations with the IABA eight months ago but was of the opinion they were satisfied to see him go. The ISC only came along when discussions between Billy and the IABA had broken down. WIthout ISC intervention, we never even reach the point where apparent agreements can be made. I seriously doubt it would be Billy's view that he was some kind of "pawn" in a chess game, no suggestion of it ever emanated from his mouth anyway.

The comment was made by Vincent Hogan. He said he believed that Billy Walsh felt that he was a pawn. He did not say that Billy Walsh said it. But most of the things he wrote were his opinion and not direct quotes so we can't select the ones we pick and choose to suit our own agenda.

The ISC should not have "only came along" at any stage!

If the IABA had indeed decided they were satisfied to see him go then the ISC should not have interfered in them letting him go.

If the ISC then wanted to remove some of their funding next year because they disagreed with the treatment of a specific individual, that was their prerogative of course. But they do have a responsibility to appropriately use their money. It is taxpayer money. It is not there to allow Kieran Mulvey, or anyone else within the ISC, to force a national governing body to do things against the wishes of their democratically elected leaders. I would have no problem with them removing funding were the standards of the boxing program to diminish. But not due to their choice of coach.


The IABA board is elected. Kieran Mulvey is not.


There are a lot of things going on, and a lot of things that went on, that neither you nor I have any knowledge about.

Joe_ Public

Donald Trump wrote: »

The comment was made by Vincent Hogan. He said he believed that Billy Walsh felt that he was a pawn. He did not say that Billy Walsh said it. But most of the things he wrote were his opinion and not direct quotes so we can't select the ones we pick and choose to suit our own agenda.

The ISC should not have "only came along" at any stage!

If the IABA had indeed decided they were satisfied to see him go then the ISC should not have interfered in them letting him go.

If the ISC then wanted to remove some of their funding next year because they disagreed with the treatment of a specific individual, that was their prerogative of course. But they do have a responsibility to appropriately use their money. It is taxpayer money. It is not there to allow Kieran Mulvey, or anyone else within the ISC, to force a national governing body to do things against the wishes of their democratically elected leaders. I would have no problem with them removing funding were the standards of the boxing program to diminish. But not due to their choice of coach.


The IABA board is elected. Kieran Mulvey is not.


There are a lot of things going on, and a lot of things that went on, that neither you nor I have any knowledge about.

I don't really care what journalist said it, I don't agree with it and I never heard Billy Walsh intimate his displeasure or opposition to the ISC's role in the affair. And the Independent piece wasn't an opinion piece, it was a focus piece detailing the narrative of the process from the start to finish. It was a reporter, with the benefit of documents presumably supplied by Billy Walsh's legal team, threading together the narrative of the story from beginning to bitter end. What he thought about it isn't of huge consequence.

You write as if you know the circumstances of the ISC's intervention, as if they just came barging in where they weren't wanted. How do you know this? In fact, there was no way of them knowing what was going on until contacted by one of the parties, either Walsh or the IABA. The only allusion to their intervention in any of the statements is by the IABA who say they contacted the ISC after one of their meetings with Billy.

Of course there's a lot of stuff going on in the background. I'll wager my life that the relationship between the ISC and Billy Walsh was a very strong one, as it should be, and people there, along with Gary Keegan, would have been an important source of advice and confidence for him in his dealings over the years with the IABA. Just a hunch on my part.

Strazdas

Donald Trump wrote: »

The comment was made by Vincent Hogan. He said he believed that Billy Walsh felt that he was a pawn. He did not say that Billy Walsh said it. But most of the things he wrote were his opinion and not direct quotes so we can't select the ones we pick and choose to suit our own agenda.

The ISC should not have "only came along" at any stage!

If the IABA had indeed decided they were satisfied to see him go then the ISC should not have interfered in them letting him go.

If the ISC then wanted to remove some of their funding next year because they disagreed with the treatment of a specific individual, that was their prerogative of course. But they do have a responsibility to appropriately use their money. It is taxpayer money. It is not there to allow Kieran Mulvey, or anyone else within the ISC, to force a national governing body to do things against the wishes of their democratically elected leaders. I would have no problem with them removing funding were the standards of the boxing program to diminish. But not due to their choice of coach.


The IABA board is elected. Kieran Mulvey is not.


There are a lot of things going on, and a lot of things that went on, that neither you nor I have any knowledge about.

The IABA haven't been forced to do anything though. They wanted Walsh out and got him out.

Joe_ Public

Strazdas wrote: »

The IABA haven't been forced to do anything though. They wanted Walsh out and got him out.

Exactly. There were no guns held to anybody's heads to give Billy everything he wanted. Billy says he wanted to stay, the IABA claim they didn't want to lose him so what else would be done when negotiations fell through only to introduce a mediator? That inevitably means the ISC. There's nothing invidious at all about the role they played.

Donald Trump

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I don't really care what journalist said it, I don't agree with it and I never heard Billy Walsh intimate his displeasure or opposition to the ISC's role in the affair. And the Independent piece wasn't an opinion piece, it was a focus piece detailing the narrative of the process from the start to finish. It was a reporter, with the benefit of documents presumably supplied by Billy Walsh's legal team, threading together the narrative of the story from beginning to bitter end. What he thought about it isn't of huge consequence.

You write as if you know the circumstances of the ISC's intervention, as if they just came barging in where they weren't wanted. How do you know this? In fact, there was no way of them knowing what was going on until contacted by one of the parties, either Walsh or the IABA. The only allusion to their intervention in any of the statements is by the IABA who say they contacted the ISC after one of their meetings with Billy.

Of course there's a lot of stuff going on in the background. I'll wager my life that the relationship between the ISC and Billy Walsh was a very strong one, as it should be, and people there, along with Gary Keegan, would have been an important source of advice and confidence for him in his dealings over the years with the IABA. Just a hunch on my part.

No, I do not know the circumstances. I only know what is in the public domain and my main issue is with the direct and very public interference by the ISC. That can't have helped. I did not say they came barging in or were unwanted but I would take a good guess that they won't be exactly welcome if they try to meddle in other events in the future.

Kieran Mulvey should not have made those public statements. That is my opinion and I (obviously) think it is a rational and reasonable opinion. They were not helpful and I would say that common sense would tell you that they were in fact counter-productive. Maybe he knew it was a lost cause at that stage and just wanted to shift blame or maybe it was due to personal feelings or grudges against one of the parties involved. I don't know.

Billy Walsh was doing a very good job. But he was an important part of a wider team. Were we going to see a similar reaction from the ISC if the IABA decided not to pick their preferred physio or sports psychologist to look after the team? The same logic applies - "Listen here IABA, Dr. X was with the team when the team was successful, and we all know that he's good, therefore you must do a deal with him to keep him or else".

If changes need to be made in the IABA then that needs to be done through the members. They can change the guys at the top. But they cannot change ISC staff. If the members want to keep the same people there, even if it is a stupid decision, then let them make that decision. Maybe it's not a stupid decision. Maybe they just know more than you and I or Kieran Mulvey!

Donald Trump

Strazdas wrote: »

The IABA haven't been forced to do anything though. They wanted Walsh out and got him out.

It was said in public that if it was not sorted, then the ISC would have to "carefully look at" future funding.

They weren't forced to do anything, but it looks like strong pressure was put on them publicly in an attempt to do so. That was only ever going to backfire!

Donald Trump

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Exactly. There were no guns held to anybody's heads to give Billy everything he wanted. Billy says he wanted to stay, the IABA claim they didn't want to lose him so what else would be done when negotiations fell through only to introduce a mediator? That inevitably means the ISC. There's nothing invidious at all about the role they played.

Yes, by all means have a mediator. But a mediator should be a mediator and not take sides. If they publicly take sides then they are not mediating.

I don't think there is any doubt that the ISC took a particular "side" in this instance.

Strazdas

Donald Trump wrote: »

It was said in public that if it was not sorted, then the ISC would have to "carefully look at" future funding.

They weren't forced to do anything, but it looks like strong pressure was put on them publicly in an attempt to do so. That was only ever going to backfire!

Wasn't Mulvey demanding a statement and an explanation from the IABA at that point though? He wasn't asking them to reinstate Billy Walsh : the 24 hour ultimatum referred to an explanation from the IABA about what had gone on.

Joe_ Public

Donald Trump wrote: »

No, I do not know the circumstances. I only know what is in the public domain and my main issue is with the direct and very public interference by the ISC. That can't have helped. I did not say they came barging in or were unwanted but I would take a good guess that they won't be exactly welcome if they try to meddle in other events in the future.

Kieran Mulvey should not have made those public statements. That is my opinion and I (obviously) think it is a rational and reasonable opinion. They were not helpful and I would say that common sense would tell you that they were in fact counter-productive. Maybe he knew it was a lost cause at that stage and just wanted to shift blame or maybe it was due to personal feelings or grudges against one of the parties involved. I don't know.

Billy Walsh was doing a very good job. But he was an important part of a wider team. Were we going to see a similar reaction from the ISC if the IABA decided not to pick their preferred physio or sports psychologist to look after the team? The same logic applies - "Listen here IABA, Dr. X was with the team when the team was successful, and we all know that he's good, therefore you must do a deal with him to keep him or else".

If changes need to be made in the IABA then that needs to be done through the members. They can change the guys at the top. But they cannot change ISC staff. If the members want to keep the same people there, even if it is a stupid decision, then let them make that decision. Maybe it's not a stupid decision. Maybe they just know more than you and I or Kieran Mulvey!

The ISC is set up to have an interest in Irish sport at two levels, participation and elite, it's is job to "meddle" if that's how you want to put it. And if that's not acceptable to the NGBs, then they need either to discontinue funding or canvas the minister to change the statutes. The instances of the ISC getting involved in so public a manner with the workings of sporting federations is very rare, as has been pointed out on this thread, only three I can think of off hand - athletics, swimming and boxing. It's not something it does with any evident relish that I can detect. I'm sure everybody in Blanchardstown would just prefer a nice quiet life with everybody getting along, but that's not always the case.

Mulvey? I dont know really, probably got it wrong politically but I'm not getting het up on that, the poor delicate sensibilities of the IABA officials aside. I guess he's been around the block a few times and when he says the attitude of the IABA was utterly shocking to him, then i guess I find that an interesting statement. But it's not the key to this whole process for me.

And I agree with one 100 per cent on one point, the IABA can, within reason, choose who they like as their own staff, including losing the services of the most successful international coach in Irish sporting history.

Joe_ Public

Donald Trump wrote: »

Yes, by all means have a mediator. But a mediator should be a mediator and not take sides. If they publicly take sides then they are not mediating.

I don't think there is any doubt that the ISC took a particular "side" in this instance.

But this wasn't a popularity contest. As I stated, Billy says he wanted to stay, the IABA claim they didn't want to lose him. So the ISC's role was to facilitate an agreement acceptable to both parties which it believed it did. So it was entitled to feel disappointed when the agreement broke down and, as a party to the negotiations, give its view that it was due to IABA intransigence that it did so. Can't find fault with their part in that much at all to be honest.

Strazdas

Joe_ Public wrote: »

But this wasn't a popularity contest. As I stated, Billy says he wanted to stay, the IABA claim they didn't want to lose him. So the ISC's role was to facilitate an agreement acceptable to both parties which it believed it did. So it was entitled to feel disappointed when the agreement broke down and, as a party to the negotiations, give its view that it was due to IABA intransigence that it did so. Can't find fault with their part in that much at all to be honest.

The ISC also said they were completely baffled as to 'how' or 'why' the agreement broke down. They claim that all sides shook hands on a deal on August 22nd and then were flabbergasted to hear two days later that the IABA were backing out of the deal they had already agreed to.

Joe_ Public

Strazdas wrote: »

The ISC also said they were completely baffled as to 'how' or 'why' the agreement broke down. They claim that all sides shook hands on a deal on August 22nd and then were flabbergasted to hear two days later that the IABA were backing out of the deal they had already agreed to.

Yes. That's the deal Joe Christle says he didn't put before the board because he didn't think they'd buy it. I guess Joe doesn't have much faith in his own powers of persuasion. Isn't it amazing that the two most powerful figures in an organisation would have agreed to a deal but then didn't believe they could convince the others on the board? I dont know about anybody else, but I find that extraordinary.

So instead they took the agreement they had reached, added a load of conditions to it and blew the entire thing out of the water.

flutered

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yes. That's the deal Joe Christle says he didn't put before the board because he didn't think they'd buy it. I guess Joe doesn't have much faith in his own powers of persuasion. Isn't it amazing that the two most powerful figures in an organisation would have agreed to a deal but then didn't believe they could convince the others on the board? I dont know about anybody else, but I find that extraordinary.

So instead they took the agreement they had reached, added a load of conditions to it and blew the entire thing out of the water.

overegoed small time officials, as brendan behan once said if you have a thing running great, get the committee involved to mess it up, or words to that effect

Strazdas

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yes. That's the deal Joe Christle says he didn't put before the board because he didn't think they'd buy it. I guess Joe doesn't have much faith in his own powers of persuasion. Isn't it amazing that the two most powerful figures in an organisation would have agreed to a deal but then didn't believe they could convince the others on the board? I dont know about anybody else, but I find that extraordinary.

So instead they took the agreement they had reached, added a load of conditions to it and blew the entire thing out of the water.

Christle now refers to the deal reached on August 22nd as a "draft proposal". Apparently, everyone else who was there seems to believe that a deal was reached and that all parties shook hands on it, including Kieran Mulvey, one of the most experienced mediators and negotiators in Ireland.

As you say, the events of August 22-24 are extraordinary. It would appear that the IABA reneged on a deal they had already agreed to and then subsequently produced a much watered down version with numerous amendments. Anyone would think they were doing their level best to make sure that 'no' deal ever went through.

Joe_ Public

Strazdas wrote: »

Christle now refers to the deal reached on August 22nd as a "draft proposal". Apparently, everyone else who was there seems to believe that a deal was reached and that all parties shook hands on it, including Kieran Mulvey, one of the most experienced mediators and negotiators in Ireland.

As you say, the events of August 22-24 are extraordinary. It would appear that the IABA reneged on a deal they had already agreed to and then subsequently produced a much watered down version with numerous amendments. Anyone would think they were doing their level best to make sure that 'no' deal ever went through.

He says he didn't put the "draft proposal" before the board because he believed a vote against would be a serious setback to their heartfelt efforts to retain Billy. But why would it have made any difference? Not having the vote was tantamount to its rejection anyway, as it led to a fairly comprehensive redrawing of the terms (none of them to do with money) which, from their extensive negotiations with Billy, they must have known would not be acceptable.

Strazdas

Joe_ Public wrote: »

He says he didn't put the "draft proposal" before the board because he believed a vote against would be a serious setback to their heartfelt efforts to retain Billy. But why would it have made any difference? Not having the vote was tantamount to its rejection anyway, as it led to a fairly comprehensive redrawing of the terms (none of them to do with money) which, from their extensive negotiations with Billy, they must have known would not be acceptable.

I suppose the big question is whether the IABA shook hands on the "deal" in bad faith ie. knowing that they never had any intention of putting it before the board. Who knows, perhaps some stonewalling tactic or maybe even an attempt to frustrate Walsh and drive him to resignation in August.

Donald Trump

Strazdas wrote: »

I suppose the big question is whether the IABA shook hands on the "deal" in bad faith ie. knowing that they never had any intention of putting it before the board. Who knows, perhaps some stonewalling tactic or maybe even an attempt to frustrate Walsh and drive him to resignation in August.

How does anyone, apart from those present, know what was or wasn't put to the Board.

My belief, and interpretation is that it was probably circulated, discussed but not put to an official vote. There would be no reason for doing so other than the fact that they didn't want it to be "officially" defeated. Think about it, if there were enough people there in support of it to win a vote, then surely they'd have insisted it be put to that vote!

The way some people seem to understand it, I think they think that one or two individuals just decided to say nothing and the rest of the board were in the dark. That is highly unlikely.

Joe_ Public

Donald Trump wrote: »

How does anyone, apart from those present, know what was or wasn't put to the Board.

My belief, and interpretation is that it was probably circulated, discussed but not put to an official vote. There would be no reason for doing so other than the fact that they didn't want it to be "officially" defeated. Think about it, if there were enough people there in support of it to win a vote, then surely they'd have insisted it be put to that vote!

The way some people seem to understand it, I think they think that one or two individuals just decided to say nothing and the rest of the board were in the dark. That is highly unlikely.

No, that's not quite it. What's extraordinary is that Joe and Fergal attend the meeting on behalf of the IABA on August 22 and shook hands on a deal (confirmed by both Billy Walsh and Sports Council), but apparently misread the situation so badly that there was subsequently no point in even putting the "draft proposal" to a vote. I have great difficulty believing that the two most senior figures of the association could have been so out of step with the feelings of other board members.

This is what they are expecting us to believe: A - that either Joe and Fergal made a complete mess of the negotiations or were somehow corralled into agreeing a proposal against their better judgment OR B - both Joe and Fergal favoured the proposed deal but it was the rest of the board who were opposed and who were then dictating the IABA's side.

One of those A or B is the only logical explanation of the IABA's own version of events.

Btw this sentence: "Think about it, if there were enough people there in support of it to win a vote, then surely they'd have insisted it be put to that vote!"
I've thought about it and find that quite interesting indeed!

Strazdas

Joe_ Public wrote: »

No, that's not quite it. What's extraordinary is that Joe and Fergal attend the meeting on behalf of the IABA on August 22 and shook hands on a deal (confirmed by both Billy Walsh and Sports Council), but apparently misread the situation so badly that there was subsequently no point in even putting the "draft proposal" to a vote. I have great difficulty believing that the two most senior figures of the association could have been so out of step with the feelings of other board members.

This is what they are expecting us to believe: A - that either Joe and Fergal made a complete mess of the negotiations or were somehow corralled into agreeing a proposal against their better judgment OR B - both Joe and Fergal favoured the proposed deal but it was the rest of the board who were opposed and who were then dictating the IABA's side.

One of those A or B is the only logical explanation of the IABA's own version of events.

Btw this sentence: "Think about it, if there were enough people there in support of it to win a vote, then surely they'd have insisted it be put to that vote!"
I've thought about it and find that quite interesting indeed!

I know that the IABA board are supposed to conduct their business by democratic vote but wouldn't the whole point of sending two chief negotiators into a meeting be that if they shook hands on a deal, the board would automatically rubber stamp the deal? Failure to do so would leave the CEO and the Chairman looking utterly ridiculous and discredited, which is what seems to have transpired (that's if we can believe anything of what the IABA are telling us about what happened in that 48 hour period).

Clearlier

Joe_ Public wrote: »

This is what they are expecting us to believe: A - that either Joe and Fergal made a complete mess of the negotiations or were somehow corralled into agreeing a proposal against their better judgment OR B - both Joe and Fergal favoured the proposed deal but it was the rest of the board who were opposed and who were then dictating the IABA's side.

One of those A or B is the only logical explanation of the IABA's own version of events.

Btw this sentence: "Think about it, if there were enough people there in support of it to win a vote, then surely they'd have insisted it be put to that vote!"
I've thought about it and find that quite interesting indeed!

Possibility C is what the IABA put forward - that the agreement forwarded to them after the negotiation did not reflect what had been agreed. FWIW I think that at best that could be described as disingenuous. The likelihood of a man who negotiated so many industrial relations deals getting the contract wrong like the IABA imply are very, very small.

I still think that the most likely explanation for this whole debacle is that the IABA weren't happy to see Billy Walsh get any kind of an upgrade to salary and authority. They wanted things to remain exactly the same. They preferred to let him go but rather than saying that straight out they went through a convoluted process. It's that lack of transparency and leadership that I think the ISC is right to be concerned about.

Joe_ Public

Clearlier wrote: »

Possibility C is what the IABA put forward - that the agreement forwarded to them after the negotiation did not reflect what had been agreed. FWIW I think that at best that could be described as disingenuous. The likelihood of a man who negotiated so many industrial relations deals getting the contract wrong like the IABA imply are very, very small.

I still think that the most likely explanation for this whole debacle is that the IABA weren't happy to see Billy Walsh get any kind of an upgrade to salary and authority. They wanted things to remain exactly the same. They preferred to let him go but rather than saying that straight out they went through a convoluted process. It's that lack of transparency and leadership that I think the ISC is right to be concerned about.

True about the salary I think. The fact is all Billy Walsh had been looking for initially was to be paid in line with High Performance directors in other sports and they try to spin it like he was some mercenary holding them to ransom. Breathtaking.

As regards the agreement, Possibility C is a non-runner for me because of their abject failure to offer any clarity as to their intentions. Take this sentence from their statement, if anyone can explain this I'm all ears. I've read it 50 times and it makes less sense to me now as when I read it the first time:

"On 22 August a meeting took place and a draft proposal was presented by Sport Ireland to the IABA. In the interests of Irish boxing, the IABA attendees expressed their concerns with the draft proposal. We were given assurances at that point that those concerns would be addressed; however, what transpired was a different draft proposal."

Strazdas

Some interesting revelations from today's Sunday Business Post :

http://www.businesspost.ie/billy-walsh-exit-boxing-chiefs-wanted-salary-hikes-in-return-for-new-contract/

It seems the IABA were demanding pay rises and new grants for the boxers, coaches and for themselves before they would agree any new contract for Billy Walsh (from what I can gather, this letter was sent very recently, not long before Walsh resigned).

Joe_ Public

So much to take issue with in that SBP piece. For a start athletes are already on a bonus scheme for winning medals, performance bonuses are enshrined in the ISC carding scheme. Think it's in the region of €10,000 for an Olympic medal and that may apply for World Champs as well. Somebody tell the IABA - they're already catered for.

And who told the boxers and coaches about Billy's salary "demands"? Zaur Antia should be on the head coach's salary anyway, so totally disingenuous to be using Zaur in any way to have a dig at Billy.

Strazdas

Joe_ Public wrote: »

So much to take issue with in that SBP piece. For a start athletes are already on a bonus scheme for winning medals, performance bonuses are enshrined in the ISC carding scheme. Think it's in the region of €10,000 for an Olympic medal and that may apply for World Champs as well. Somebody tell the IABA - they're already catered for.

And who told the boxers and coaches about Billy's salary "demands"? Zaur Antia should be on the head coach's salary anyway, so totally disingenuous to be using Zaur in any way to have a dig at Billy.

Plus, that document from the IABA to the ISC appears to flatly contradict what Carruth said on Friday. He says the IABA were simply waiting for Walsh to sign the new contract that supposedly had been agreed with him in principle in recent weeks and then all would be fine.

Now we're finding out that the IABA had very recently sent off a big list of demands to the ISC and made it expressly clear they wouldn't agree any contract with Walsh unless their demands were met.

You'll remember too that the ISC had told the IABA in recent weeks that signing a new contract with Walsh was a matter of urgency as there was a very real risk of losing him to US boxing.

walshb

Seems this storm really has blown over....

Ctrl Alt Delete

In public eye for sure. In ISC and politicians eyes not a chance

Joe_ Public

walshb wrote: »

Seems this storm really has blown over....

Maybe...everybody moves on and we can just add it to the ever lengthening list of IABA cock-ups, PR disasters, mistreatment of employees, coaches, athletes. But dont worry, it's one of life's certainties - won't have to wait long before the next fck-up.

Strazdas

The full article from yesterday's Sunday Business Post is now available :

http://www.businesspost.ie/irish-boxings-gloves-of-clay/

Lots of new info but the main one is that the IABA presented the Minister for Sport and the ISC with a completely altered contract and a big list of demands on October 14 (a mere five days before Walsh resigned) and said they would refuse to renew his contract unless all the demands were met.

seadnamac

Strazdas wrote: »

The full article from yesterday's Sunday Business Post is now available :

http://www.businesspost.ie/irish-boxings-gloves-of-clay/

Lots of new info but the main one is that the IABA presented the Minister for Sport and the ISC with a completely altered contract and a big list of demands on October 14 (a mere five days before Walsh resigned) and said they would refuse to renew his contract unless all the demands were met.

Another good article here from the Irish Times;

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/tipping-point-iaba-fiasco-shows-just-how-petty-we-are-as-a-nation-1.2405546

The whole debacle is a story of pettiness, begrudgery and jealousy from the IABA. People can try and dress it up any way they like but that's the crux of it. A small time operation full of small minded people who don't know how to handle themselves on a stage this large.

There is a saying in business that you should always hire people who are smarter than you. The IABA are miles away from that kind of thinking. They are stuck in a time where people should know their place and do what they are told.

At this stage, I hope the High Performance Unit is separated from them like they have done in the UK.

Joe_ Public

Strazdas wrote: »

The full article from yesterday's Sunday Business Post is now available :

Lots of new info but the main one is that the IABA presented the Minister for Sport and the ISC with a completely altered contract and a big list of demands on October 14 (a mere five days before Walsh resigned) and said they would refuse to renew his contract unless all the demands were met.

Nothing new apart from the Oct 14 meeting which is a critical addition. It's pretty much the crux of their opposition to any new deal and yet they somehow neglect to mention it in their own statement or in any of the subsequent radio interviews. I wonder why.

Strazdas

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Nothing new apart from the Oct 14 meeting which is a critical addition. It's pretty much the crux of their opposition to any new deal and yet they somehow neglect to mention it in their own statement or in any of the subsequent radio interviews. I wonder why.

It does seem extraordinary that the IABA were using Billy Walsh's position as a bargaining tool to get as much for themselves from the ISC. Their stance was along the lines of "Since you lot are so desperate to keep him, you're going to have to meet a load of our demands". No indication from this that *they* were keen to keep him.

The timing of this is very striking too. The ISC had warned them for the last eight weeks or so that the renewal of Walsh's contract was a matter of extreme urgency and yet here they were in mid October playing hardball and acting the eejit over the issue of his contract.

Joe_ Public

Strazdas wrote: »

It does seem extraordinary that the IABA were using Billy Walsh's position as a bargaining tool to get as much for themselves from the ISC. Their stance was along the lines of "Since you lot are so desperate to keep him, you're going to have to meet a load of our demands". No indication from this that *they* were keen to keep him.

The timing of this is very striking too. The ISC had warned them for the last eight weeks or so that the renewal of Walsh's contract was a matter of extreme urgency and yet here they were in mid October playing hardball and acting the eejit over the issue of his contract.

For a group comprised of fairly sharp businessmen, the IABA do seem to have a peculiar grasp of how negotiating works. When you reach a standstill, instead of compromising, dig your heels in, make more demands, ratchet up the asking price. It can be a very effective technique, depending on what it is you are looking for!

No wonder Mulvey and the trades union guy Walsh sent in were left tearing their hair out in frustration.

Strazdas

Joe_ Public wrote: »

For a group comprised of fairly sharp businessmen, the IABA do seem to have a peculiar grasp of how negotiating works. When you reach a standstill, instead of compromising, dig your heels in, make more demands, ratchet up the asking price. It can be a very effective technique, depending on what it is you are looking for!

No wonder Mulvey and the trades union guy Walsh sent in were left tearing their hair out in frustration.

I do wonder if their list of demands on October 14 and the changes to Walsh's contract was actually a big bluff on their part and they were simply trying to force Walsh's resignation. They surely must have known that the ISC wouldn't cave in on all these demands at such a late stage in the process.

Joe_ Public

Strazdas wrote: »

I do wonder if their list of demands on October 14 and the changes to Walsh's contract was actually a big bluff on their part and they were simply trying to force Walsh's resignation. They surely must have known that the ISC wouldn't cave in on all these demands at such a late stage in the process.

You might say that, I couldn't possibly comment.

Power21stC

I agree with most of the above. There are definitely different camps. As I said Bill would only select the best which left various camps miffed. They all have their own lad that they want selected. I think the fact that Billy would never be a yes Man. He made decisions he felt were right. I also feel that he was pushed. They wanted rid of him. I also dont think he was Kenneth's greatest fan purely from a professional point of view. Ken is slightly wild and had his own problems with Alcohol abuse. There is no room for this at that level. Billy's Team were very Pro. Their diets and fitness was constantly monitored. During training at camp which could go on for months. The lads were in bed at 10pm. I saw this for my self.

barney4001

Strazdas wrote: »

Some interesting revelations from today's Sunday Business Post :

http://www.businesspost.ie/billy-walsh-exit-boxing-chiefs-wanted-salary-hikes-in-return-for-new-contract/

It seems the IABA were demanding pay rises and new grants for the boxers, coaches and for themselves before they would agree any new contract for Billy Walsh (from what I can gather, this letter was sent very recently, not long before Walsh resigned).

all along i had a feeling this was the cause of the problem,the officials are like the politions in ireland just fill your pockets lads,never mind anyone else

Strazdas

Power21stC wrote: »

I agree with most of the above. There are definitely different camps. As I said Bill would only select the best which left various camps miffed. They all have their own lad that they want selected. I think the fact that Billy would never be a yes Man. He made decisions he felt were right. I also feel that he was pushed. They wanted rid of him. I also dont think he was Kenneth's greatest fan purely from a professional point of view. Ken is slightly wild and had his own problems with Alcohol abuse. There is no room for this at that level. Billy's Team were very Pro. Their diets and fitness was constantly monitored. During training at camp which could go on for months. The lads were in bed at 10pm. I saw this for my self.

That's the way it had to be. If you have a supremo running Irish boxing, then it has to be him making all the decisions, not a committee. You don't see Joe Schmidt or Martin O'Neill taking orders from a bunch of suits.

It's perfectly obvious that Irish boxing was ultra professional under Walsh. The reason they were able to compete with countries like Russia and Kazakhstan was because how professional the set up was. The suits in the IABA couldn't stand that Walsh was getting all the praise though and they deeply resented the idea of him getting a big pay rise and added powers. They would sooner force him out of Irish boxing for good rather than allow that to happen.

Joe_ Public

Power21stC wrote: »

I agree with most of the above. There are definitely different camps. As I said Bill would only select the best which left various camps miffed. They all have their own lad that they want selected. I think the fact that Billy would never be a yes Man. He made decisions he felt were right. I also feel that he was pushed. They wanted rid of him. I also dont think he was Kenneth's greatest fan purely from a professional point of view. Ken is slightly wild and had his own problems with Alcohol abuse. There is no room for this at that level. Billy's Team were very Pro. Their diets and fitness was constantly monitored. During training at camp which could go on for months. The lads were in bed at 10pm. I saw this for my self.

When Billy first went into the Irish coaching set-up, the boxers reckoned he'd be a soft touch. Trips abroad were looked forward to because even if they lost, there'd still be lots of time for drinking and having fun. Well, after Billy had him reported and his funding cut for 6 months, Ken soon realised Billy was far from a soft touch. Ken knows if it wasn't for Billy, and Zaur and Gary, he'd never have won an Olympic medal, or probably any medal, and he has fully acknowledged this.

Strazdas

Brilliant interview with Emmet Ryan of The Sunday Business Post, probably the best interview on the subject I've heard all week :

https://soundcloud.com/ballineurope/the-continuing-fallout-of-billy-walsh-and-the-iaba

mjon3105

I agree entirely - those comments of Strazdas sums up the whole sad and crazy situation. I will never understand why the Irish Sports Council now Sport Ireland did not implement the recommendations of their own external auditors who found that serious questions re the lack of authority of the Head Coach needed to be urgently addressed and that remember was the main recommendation(boxing) in the post 2012 Olympic review. Why spend a 'fortune' on appointing these excellent people and then ignoring their recommendations? They've now paid a high price for their folly ...Mike

Strazdas wrote: »

That's the way it had to be. If you have a supremo running Irish boxing, then it has to be him making all the decisions, not a committee. You don't see Joe Schmidt or Martin O'Neill taking orders from a bunch of suits.

It's perfectly obvious that Irish boxing was ultra professional under Walsh. The reason they were able to compete with countries like Russia and Kazakhstan was because how professional the set up was. The suits in the IABA couldn't stand that Walsh was getting all the praise though and they deeply resented the idea of him getting a big pay rise and added powers. They would sooner force him out of Irish boxing for good rather than allow that to happen.

barney4001

Eamon Dunphy in Mondays Irish Star hit the nail on the head walsh shafted by the blazer brigade of the I A B A,Walsh managed to keep his focus and managed and prepare these teams brilliantly while having to deal so much nonsence and disruption behind the scenes,he is an outstanding individual one of the greatest or irish sports people ,That he has been treated so badly is an utter disgrace

walshb

barney4001 wrote: »

Eamon Dunphy in Mondays Irish Star hit the nail on the head walsh shafted by the blazer brigade of the I A B A,Walsh managed to keep his focus and managed and prepare these teams brilliantly while having to deal so much nonsence and disruption behind the scenes,he is an outstanding individual one of the greatest or irish sports people ,That he has been treated so badly is an utter disgrace

Give it a while and Dunphy will turn completely and blame Walsh. That is if he remembers that he even wrote this piece in the first place.

efb

The IABA heads and Sport Ireland will be before the transport and sport committee today