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

Joe_ Public · 29-10-2015 10:12am

Donald Trump wrote: »

I get the impression that sides may have indeed been taken in this particular issue.

Are you sure that you are ok with the idea,in principal, of external bureaucrats and administrators actively trying to force decisions on democratically elected volunteer boards of national organizations?

Take a hypothetical scenario. The current situation never happened but the Sports Council say "Hey, you can't have a head coach who doesn't have a degree in Sports Science. You need to sack Billy Walsh and hire Mr. X. Mr X has 20 years experience as a coach and has a degree". Or how about "You can't appoint Zaur Antia as head coach because he hasn't completed our 6-week training course on how to be an effective coach"

Or do you just agree with it in this instance because you happen to support the same "side"

The ISC should be strongly told to keep their noses out. I hope that the IABA are strong enough to stand up to them!

Your hypothetical scenarios are utterly ridiculous so apologies but I'm just going to ignore them.

I'm pretty much ok with the principle of sporting organisations receiving government funding being answerable as to how that funding is used and being held to account for their actions. It's the same that exists in other countries, so I have no objections to it being in use here.

Joe_ Public · 29-10-2015 10:14am

walshb wrote: »

Oh, so it's back to money? Sure I always knew.

Well, chuckle. You were actually half-right in a totally wrong sort of way

walshb · 29-10-2015 10:30am

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Well, chuckle. You were actually half-right in a totally wrong sort of way

Whatever way, it's a lot about money. Whose side the money issues lies the most with is open to interpretation. The whole point of Sport Ireland covering Billy's cost does not explain away the issue being about money. It seems, and I could be wrong, that Sport Ireland doing this, or completely funding this is a new thing. Like they stepped in to do this? Was it always that way?

Joe_ Public · 29-10-2015 10:48am

walshb wrote: »

Whatever way, it's a lot about money. Whose side the money issues lies the most with is open to interpretation. The whole point of Sport Ireland covering Billy's cost does not explain away the issue being about money. It seems, and I could be wrong, that Sport Ireland doing this, or completely funding this is a new thing. Like they stepped in to do this? Was it always that way?

It's probably exceptional, but then these were exceptional circumstances. Are you worried a lot of other sports will come along and say we want money for our HP director too? Well the answer is, go develop a world class program and a world class coach, deliver the results and then come back to us.

And I will shout myself hoarse until this gets through some rather well-insulated craniums: they were not seeking to break the bank for Billy Walsh's salary, but to pay him in line with what HP directors get in other sports. He is on record as saying that for several years. To make it out like some sort of ransom job was taking place here, is just simply wrong, wrong, wrong.

John Treacy says they were funding Fergal Carruth's position too. In fact, the statement he made yesterday about the IABA being almost totally reliant on ISC funding was quite interesting as it pointed to the abject failure of the IABA to market their own fighters and use them as cash cows for the association. No hint of a threat here from Treacy. Just simple, bracing reality.

efb · 29-10-2015 10:51am

So Fergal gets paid by the taxpayer- how much???

Joe_ Public · 29-10-2015 11:14am

efb wrote: »

So Fergal gets paid by the taxpayer- how much???

No idea of Carruth's salary, I'm sure he earns every penny whatever it is. This is what Treacy said to the first Dail committee:

"We pay the chief executive [Fergal Carruth, brother of 1992 Olympic gold medallist Michael Carruth], we pay other administrative staff and I’m not happy. I’m not happy how the chief executive has performed on this matter and I’m saying it bluntly here and that will be reviewed."

I suppose if the IABA is almost totally reliant on the government for its funding anyway, then it's all going to be taxpayer money anyway regardless of who signs the cheques. At a guess, I'd say the IABA just weren't in a position to be able to fund the appointment, so the ISC stepped in and said we'll pay it for you. Interesting that Bernard Allen, a member of the interview panel, expressed several reservations about the entire process before the committee yesterday.

Donald Trump · 29-10-2015 1:06pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Your hypothetical scenarios are utterly ridiculous so apologies but I'm just going to ignore them.

I'm pretty much ok with the principle of sporting organisations receiving government funding being answerable as to how that funding is used and being held to account for their actions. It's the same that exists in other countries, so I have no objections to it being in use here.

Yes utterly ridiculous. Of course. Saying that allows you to ignore the question.

How about framing the scenario from another angle - hypothetical but one that conspiracy theorists here seemingly here ascribe to. "We know you want Zaur Antia to be the head coach but we're not allowing you to make him the head coach. Instead we're going to insist that Mr. X stays in the job".

Your last paragraph is just generic stuff that everyone has to agree with but makes not logical contribution to your argument. Of course every organization has to be held accountable for how it uses its funding. So if they get funding to provide for a coach, then they have to show that they did that, and that they got a competent coach. That doesn't extend to them having to hire one specific individual for their job. Unless you are saying that the funding should be specific for Billy Walsh to have a specific job, in which case they are not funding the IABA but funding Billy Walsh

Donald Trump · 29-10-2015 1:22pm

efb wrote: »

Why?

Why was I asking what he thought about those scenarios? I wanted to ask whether it was his opinion in principle that interference in the running of the orgaization, from an external funding body should be allowed or whether he was just saying that in this instance because it suited his argument.

My point of view is that the administrators/bureaucrats should stick to their positions. They should check that money is not being misused and help to make sure a framework is there that the organization can avail of.

I don't care whether the Sports Council are "pro" or "anti" Billy Walsh. This would still be my opinion.

If the IABA want the let go of the only man who will allow us to win medals at the olympics (which seems to be what many of the media experts appear to believe), then let them do that. When the Sports Council are looking at the results of their funding at the end of the year they can see that and act accordingly. If the organization wants to make stupid decisions, then let them. If their membership allows them to do it, then they will be the ones to suffer

If boxing people want to replace the current board, they can do it. If they want to replace Kieran Mulvey in the Sports Council, they can't. Who knows, is it impossible that a member of the current board might leave and at some stage down the road be employed by the Sports Council?

My point is on the principal of the thing.

Joe_ Public · 29-10-2015 1:24pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

Yes utterly ridiculous. Of course. Saying that allows you to ignore the question.

How about framing the scenario from another angle - hypothetical but one that conspiracy theorists here seemingly here ascribe to. "We know you want Zaur Antia to be the head coach but we're not allowing you to make him the head coach. Instead we're going to insist that Mr. X stays in the job".

Your last paragraph is just generic stuff that everyone has to agree with but makes not logical contribution to your argument. Of course every organization has to be held accountable for how it uses its funding. So if they get funding to provide for a coach, then they have to show that they did that, and that they got a competent coach. That doesn't extend to them having to hire one specific individual for their job. Unless you are saying that the funding should be specific for Billy Walsh to have a specific job, in which case they are not funding the IABA but funding Billy Walsh

I honestly don't understand your hypothetical scenarios, or the point of them, I'm sure I'm completely missing something. Everybody understands the IABA makes its own appointments, where is it argued otherwise? The ISC has no power to impose personnel on any sporting organisation, nobody is claiming they do. What took place here was a breakdown in negotiations, the Sports Council was asked to step in as mediator - the IABA has actually written this in statements, more than once. The notion of unwarranted interference is just daft, even the IABA itself has moved on from that position now. Very old news.

I don't feel the need to have any argument or subscribe to conspiracy theories. Like there's still some great unfathomable mystery here. We have bundles of information at this stage and it's quite clear to any reasonable mind that there are two possible explanations: A. The IABA never wanted to keep Billy Walsh and thus played a blinder during the negotiations or B. They desperately wanted to keep their head coach as they claim but through gross ineptitude they let him slip.

That's it: A or B. Take your pick.

Strazdas · 29-10-2015 1:53pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

I get the impression that you don't really have any idea about how Boards or organisations work.

It would be my understanding that the Board members do not receive remuneration due to being on the Board. There may be some staff there in an ex-officio capacity. I don't know the particular structure of the IABA board but I do have a general idea who boards and organisations work in general! Perhaps you are correct. Perhaps they were demanding pay rises "for themselves" from zero to the new total of zero.

What I meant is that Carruth is the fulltime, fully paid Chief Executive Officer of the IABA and yet it was the chairman of the board, Joe Christle, effectively an unpaid amateur who was fielding all the questions yesterday.

Donald Trump · 29-10-2015 2:03pm

Strazdas wrote: »

What I meant is that Carruth is the fulltime, fully paid Chief Executive Officer of the IABA and yet it was the chairman of the board, Joe Christle, effectively an unpaid amateur who was fielding all the questions yesterday.

It makes logical sense to me.

The Board should be responsible for governance and oversight. If the CEO messes up, they need to smack him down. If they should smack him down but don't, then they (not the CEO) need to answer to that. Which is why it would be appropriate and expected for the Board to be at the front line of any questioning like this. It had been stated publicly that the Sports Council said there were issues with governance.

The board can probably fire the CEO but the CEO cannot fire the Board. I'm not sure what your point is by referring to someone as an "unpaid amateur". Is it just an attempt to use emotive language and words as a sneaky slur on the man? Again, I think it comes down to a lack of understanding of how Boards do, and should, work and their roles within an organization

Joe_ Public · 29-10-2015 2:17pm

Strazdas wrote: »

What I meant is that Carruth is the fulltime, fully paid Chief Executive Officer of the IABA and yet it was the chairman of the board, Joe Christle, effectively an unpaid amateur who was fielding all the questions yesterday.

It's the old school way and they're entitled to it if that's what they want. The modern way of doing business is having a strong CEO in charge with vision and initiative who is answerable to the board. Like Athletics has John Foley, swimming has or had Sarah Keane, sailing has or had James O'Callaghan, cricket has Warren Deutrom etc etc It is these people who are providing the leadership and vision for progress to be made and they are strong and capable enough to carry the board with them. If you were looking for a model of how a sport should work and how a CEO should operate, cricket would be a very good choice. Deutrom is one of the best administrators Irish sport has ever had.

Donald Trump · 29-10-2015 2:26pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I honestly don't understand your hypothetical scenarios, or the point of them, I'm sure I'm completely missing something. Everybody understands the IABA makes its own appointments, where is it argued otherwise? The ISC has no power to impose personnel on any sporting organisation, nobody is claiming they do. What took place here was a breakdown in negotiations, the Sports Council was asked to step in as mediator - the IABA has actually written this in statements, more than once. The notion of unwarranted interference is just daft, even the IABA itself has moved on from that position now. Very old news.

I don't feel the need to have any argument or subscribe to conspiracy theories. Like there's still some great unfathomable mystery here. We have bundles of information at this stage and it's quite clear to any reasonable mind that there are two possible explanations: A. The IABA never wanted to keep Billy Walsh and thus played a blinder during the negotiations or B. They desperately wanted to keep their head coach as they claim but through gross ineptitude they let him slip.

That's it: A or B. Take your pick.

Google "False Dichotomy"

Joe_ Public · 29-10-2015 2:36pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

Google "False Dichotomy"

Ok I'll see your false dichotomy and raise you a rubeum allec.

Strazdas · 29-10-2015 2:37pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

It makes logical sense to me.

The Board should be responsible for governance and oversight. If the CEO messes up, they need to smack him down. If they should smack him down but don't, then they (not the CEO) need to answer to that. Which is why it would be appropriate and expected for the Board to be at the front line of any questioning like this. It had been stated publicly that the Sports Council said there were issues with governance.

The board can probably fire the CEO but the CEO cannot fire the Board. I'm not sure what your point is by referring to someone as an "unpaid amateur". Is it just an attempt to use emotive language and words as a sneaky slur on the man? Again, I think it comes down to a lack of understanding of how Boards do, and should, work and their roles within an organization

John Treacy did make the very valid point yesterday that if they felt they couldn't get Billy Walsh's contract past the board then the suggestion must be that the board has little or no confidence in the HPU.

walshb · 29-10-2015 2:47pm

Strazdas wrote: »

John Treacy did make the very valid point yesterday that if they felt they couldn't get Billy Walsh's contract past the board then the suggestion must be that the board has little or no confidence in the HPU.

Or little or no confidence in Billy?

gordongekko · 29-10-2015 2:50pm

walshb wrote: »

Or little or no confidence in Billy?

Why even enter contract negotiations so?

walshb · 29-10-2015 2:53pm

gordongekko wrote: »

Why even enter contract negotiations so?

Ask them. Sometimes people will mislead you. Go through the motions so to speak.

Donald Trump · 29-10-2015 2:56pm

Strazdas wrote: »

John Treacy did make the very valid point yesterday that if they felt they couldn't get Billy Walsh's contract past the board then the suggestion must be that the board has little or no confidence in the HPU.

Not really.

I'll try to explain it in a basic way. Think about the extremes.

Would the IABA have wanted him to continue in his current role under current conditions for a salary of 1 cent a year? -Extremely likely
Would Billy Walsh have agreed to these conditions - Extremely unlikely

Would the IABA have wanted to give him absolute power over the organisation and a salary of 1m a year? - Extremely unlikely
Would Billy Walsh have agreed to these conditions - Extremely likely

The point is that for each party, there are extremes where they will definitely agree or disagree. So for each party then there is a point, or a range in the middle beyond which they are not willing to accept.

For a deal to be done, this acceptable region has to overlap. If it doesn't then a deal cannot be done.

In itself, none of what happened is evidence that the IABA don't have confidence in the HPU or in Billy Walsh's abilities. And it can not prove they did or did not want to keep him.

Joe_ Public · 29-10-2015 2:59pm

walshb wrote: »

Ask them. Sometimes people will mislead you. Go through the motions so to speak.

So they haven't been asked, like 10 times already? Only they keep coming up with a different story each time.

"Go through the motions"? Is that the best answer we've got? Go into a process just for the sake of it, keep the charade going for 8 months - EIGHT MONTHS - wasting people's time and money and then having all this negative energy swirling around the place eight months out from the Olympics. I mean I've heard a lot of odd suggestions on this thread, but that, jeez...it's like we haven't even got beyond square one here at all.

walshb · 29-10-2015 3:20pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

So they haven't been asked, like 10 times already? Only they keep coming up with a different story each time.

"Go through the motions"? Is that the best answer we've got? Go into a process just for the sake of it, keep the charade going for 8 months - EIGHT MONTHS - wasting people's time and money and then having all this negative energy swirling around the place eight months out from the Olympics. I mean I've heard a lot of odd suggestions on this thread, but that, jeez...it's like we haven't even got beyond square one here at all.

But listening to many here and in the media the "truth" in all this appears to be that the IABA wanted him out. So, it makes perfect sense that they'd go through the motions and put up road blocks. They were hardly going to come straight out with it if they wanted him ousted. They weren't going to be that callous.

Do you believe the IABA wanted rid of Billy? If so, doesn't it makes sense that all the talks and negotiations and deals were simply a case of going thorugh the motions until he cracked?

For me, this should make perfect sense for those who see this as the IABA being out to shaft Walsh. It is either that, or they didn't want to shaft him and simply couldn't come to an agreed settlement.

cowzerp · 29-10-2015 3:32pm

walshb wrote: »

It is either that, or they didn't want to shaft him and simply couldn't come to an agreed settlement.

or maybe they felt if he got a good pay rise the others would get disillusioned!

walshb · 29-10-2015 3:36pm

cowzerp wrote: »

or maybe they felt if he got a good pay rise the others would get disillusioned!

That was a point they made. An understandable one too.

The HP unit, as well as the whole IABA/Club structure is such a big team effort. The singling out of one man so very publicly is probabaly where this all started to turn sour.

Joe_ Public · 29-10-2015 3:52pm

walshb wrote: »

But listening to many here and in the media the "truth" in all this appears to be that the IABA wanted him out. So, it makes perfect sense that they'd go through the motions and put up road blocks. They were hardly going to come straight out with it if they wanted him ousted. They weren't going to be that callous.

Do you believe the IABA wanted rid of Billy? If so, doesn't it makes sense that all the talks and negotiations and deals were simply a case of going thorugh the motions until he cracked?

For me, this should make perfect sense for those who see this as the IABA being out to shaft Walsh. It is either that, or they didn't want to shaft him and simply couldn't come to an agreed settlement.

To be honest I'd have had more respect for them if they'd just come out from the start and said they wanted him gone - if that was their position - and then dug in to see out the ensuing storm. At least it'd have been all played out earlier in the year, not so close to the Olympics and not been a distraction while the World Champions were ongoing. The first thing they did, according to Treacy yesterday, was to contact the Sports Council and tell them about the "crazy" offer from the USA so that either tells me that they wanted the ISC to come in and intervene to prevent it OR they were envisaging a long, drawn out process of negotiation, just a silly game of politics the aim of which was to drive everybody to distraction until, as you say, Billy Walsh was basically broken. Kind of cowardly way to do things, but that's politics for you.

Agreement? They did come to agreement on two occasions, after both of which the IABA moved the goalposts and cranked up their demands. It's all there in the documentation if you care to read it.

Joe_ Public · 29-10-2015 4:00pm

cowzerp wrote: »

or maybe they felt if he got a good pay rise the others would get disillusioned!

Let's go over this one more time. Billy Walsh is on record since after the 2012 Olympics that all he wanted was to be recognised and paid for the job he was doing - High Performance Director. If they'd given him that, I am certain none of the last 8 months happens, even with the USA job offer, he'd have limped onto Rio and, depending on Irish fortunes, had it out with the IABA afterwards and then either stayed or gone.

The proposed salary increase was intended to bring it into line with what HP directors were being paid across the board in all sports, to end the ludicrous situation where directors in far less successful sports - every sport basically - were being better rewarded than Walsh. If the other coaches were being under-paid - quite likely - well that should be addressed too.

The pond here is starting to reek with the overflow of dead red herrings being flung into it.

walshb · 29-10-2015 4:03pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Agreement? They did come to agreement on two occasions, after both of which the IABA moved the goalposts and cranked up their demands. It's all there in the documentation if you care to read it.

I don't need to read anything. As it stands it's one side's word against the other. It's all likely in the small print, or invisible print. I am not sure what you want me to read.

Strazdas · 29-10-2015 4:11pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

To be honest I'd have had more respect for them if they'd just come out from the start and said they wanted him gone - if that was their position - and then dug in to see out the ensuing storm. At least it'd have been all played out earlier in the year, not so close to the Olympics and not been a distraction while the World Champions were ongoing. The first thing they did, according to Treacy yesterday, was to contact the Sports Council and tell them about the "crazy" offer from the USA so that either tells me that they wanted the ISC to come in and intervene to prevent it OR they were envisaging a long, drawn out process of negotiation, just a silly game of politics the aim of which was to drive everybody to distraction until, as you say, Billy Walsh was basically broken. Kind of cowardly way to do things, but that's politics for you.

Agreement? They did come to agreement on two occasions, after both of which the IABA moved the goalposts and cranked up their demands. It's all there in the documentation if you care to read it.

If Vincent Hogan in the Independent is correct, Carruth and Christle's reaction to Walsh mentioning a "crazy money" offer from the US was astonishing. It was along the lines of "That's grand Billy, we would just have to work out a way to reveal to the press and the public that you're leaving". Everything was screwed from that moment onwards.

Joe_ Public · 29-10-2015 4:13pm

walshb wrote: »

I don't need to read anything. As it stands it's one side's word against the other. It's all likely in the small print, or invisible print. I am not sure what you want me to read.

No, this is true. There are times I too wish I had read nothing about this whole sorry affair.

Donald Trump · 29-10-2015 5:12pm

Strazdas wrote: »

If Vincent Hogan in the Independent is correct, Carruth and Christle's reaction to Walsh mentioning a "crazy money" offer from the US was astonishing. It was along the lines of "That's grand Billy, we would just have to work out a way to reveal to the press and the public that you're leaving". Everything was screwed from that moment onwards.

Like most people, I'd like to think I'm good at my job. Also, like most people, I think I could be getting paid at least a bit more than I am currently. Or at the very least that I'd like to.

I'd also like to think that my manager would like me to continue in my role.

If another company came in and offered me, say, double my current salary, I don't think that my current employer would match it. (If they did, it would mean I'm an idiot for working there for half of what they were willing to pay me.)
Instead, I'd hope that the best that they would say to me is "oh ok. congratulations. We can't match that but we're happy for you and wish you the best. Lets try to work out an orderly exit so that you will stay with us long enough to hand over your tasks to your successor."

That wouldn't mean that my manager was conspiring all along to get rid of me!

Strazdas · 29-10-2015 5:34pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

Like most people, I'd like to think I'm good at my job. Also, like most people, I think I could be getting paid at least a bit more than I am currently. Or at the very least that I'd like to.

I'd also like to think that my manager would like me to continue in my role.

If another company came in and offered me, say, double my current salary, I don't think that my current employer would match it. (If they did, it would mean I'm an idiot for working there for half of what they were willing to pay me.)
Instead, I'd hope that the best that they would say to me is "oh ok. congratulations. We can't match that but we're happy for you and wish you the best. Lets try to work out an orderly exit so that you will stay with us long enough to hand over your tasks to your successor."

That wouldn't mean that my manager was conspiring all along to get rid of me!

Well according to Hogan, Walsh added "I know you would never be in a position to match that offer and I can assure you I have no desire to leave" or words to that effect.

It does seem like Carruth and Christle had no particular desire to keep Walsh. They had eight months to sort out the situation (something that could easily have been hammered out in a fortnight) and failed to do so.

Donald Trump · 29-10-2015 7:05pm

Strazdas wrote: »

Well according to Hogan, Walsh added "I know you would never be in a position to match that offer and I can assure you I have no desire to leave" or words to that effect.

It does seem like Carruth and Christle had no particular desire to keep Walsh. They had eight months to sort out the situation (something that could easily have been hammered out in a fortnight) and failed to do so.

Look it's simple.

Billy Walsh was an employee of the IABA. Had he been satisfied with the conditions under which he was employed, he would still be working there. It was not that his contract ran out. It is my understanding that he resigned.

If he didn't want to leave, and was happy there, he would have not left of his own volition. He would have simply said nothing and continued. The conspiracy theorists would then have gotten their proof when the IABA decided to fire him for whatever conspiracy reason they think. So if your view is that the IABA were out to get rid of Billy at all costs, he basically made it easy on them by giving them plausible deniability.

I do not see the point in his mentioning the other offer other than to attempt to use it as leverage. Again, if someone was to offer me a better package than I have, but I was never going to take it, I would not tell my employer as they might then think I am talking to others and therefore not fully committed to the future of the company.

The simple truth is that Billy Walsh was not happy with the conditions that he currently had in the job. Be that money or autonomy. Maybe he was wrong or maybe he was correct in what he wanted. I don't know. He wanted more and they decided not to give it to him and so he moved on. Which, while unfortunate, was the right thing to do for the sake of all involved. His requirements could have been related to personal gain or could have been for the greater good of boxing with no personal gain to him. Regardless, it seems to have been the refusal of the IABA to accede to these requirements which caused him to resign. They were entitled to make that decision without undue external influence.

I hope that Billy does well in his new position. I am sure that he will. He might find that he has even less influence in his new role. Relatively speaking, very few people care about amateur boxing in the US.

Joe_ Public · 29-10-2015 7:27pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

Look it's simple.

Billy Walsh was an employee of the IABA. Had he been satisfied with the conditions under which he was employed, he would still be working there. It was not that his contract ran out. It is my understanding that he resigned.

If he didn't want to leave, and was happy there, he would have not left of his own volition. He would have simply said nothing and continued. The conspiracy theorists would then have gotten their proof when the IABA decided to fire him for whatever conspiracy reason they think. So if your view is that the IABA were out to get rid of Billy at all costs, he basically made it easy on them by giving them plausible deniability.

I do not see the point in his mentioning the other offer other than to attempt to use it as leverage. Again, if someone was to offer me a better package than I have, but I was never going to take it, I would not tell my employer as they might then think I am talking to others and therefore not fully committed to the future of the company.

The simple truth is that Billy Walsh was not happy with the conditions that he currently had in the job. Be that money or autonomy. Maybe he was wrong or maybe he was correct in what he wanted. I don't know. He wanted more and they decided not to give it to him and so he moved on. Which, while unfortunate, was the right thing to do for the sake of all involved. His requirements could have been related to personal gain or could have been for the greater good of boxing with no personal gain to him. Regardless, it seems to have been the refusal of the IABA to accede to these requirements which caused him to resign. They were entitled to make that decision without undue external influence.

I hope that Billy does well in his new position. I am sure that he will. He might find that he has even less influence in his new role. Relatively speaking, very few people care about amateur boxing in the US.

Most of that is fairly reasonable, although if Billy's positino was simple, then so was the IABAs. If they wanted to keep him, they'd have found a way. Two can play that game.

On Billy's new position. You can't doubt he'll have full control. I've read the job descriptions on the USA Boxing website. The Head Coach is the main over there, it's the flipside to here, the director is answerable to the Head Coach. Although, may be more along the lines of soccer where clubs have a director of football. He has absolute autonomy over everything, from team preparation to selection, to appointment of coaches. Of course, things written on paper aren't always the reality, but there's no reason to think it won't apply there.

True, they've had their issues there, but they're setting about putting things right, and I bet they can't believe their luck that a rival association, likely a main rival when it comes to Rio, were willing to let their head man go at this stage.

Strazdas · 29-10-2015 10:03pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

Look it's simple.

Billy Walsh was an employee of the IABA. Had he been satisfied with the conditions under which he was employed, he would still be working there. It was not that his contract ran out. It is my understanding that he resigned.

If he didn't want to leave, and was happy there, he would have not left of his own volition. He would have simply said nothing and continued. The conspiracy theorists would then have gotten their proof when the IABA decided to fire him for whatever conspiracy reason they think. So if your view is that the IABA were out to get rid of Billy at all costs, he basically made it easy on them by giving them plausible deniability.

I do not see the point in his mentioning the other offer other than to attempt to use it as leverage. Again, if someone was to offer me a better package than I have, but I was never going to take it, I would not tell my employer as they might then think I am talking to others and therefore not fully committed to the future of the company.

The simple truth is that Billy Walsh was not happy with the conditions that he currently had in the job. Be that money or autonomy. Maybe he was wrong or maybe he was correct in what he wanted. I don't know. He wanted more and they decided not to give it to him and so he moved on. Which, while unfortunate, was the right thing to do for the sake of all involved. His requirements could have been related to personal gain or could have been for the greater good of boxing with no personal gain to him. Regardless, it seems to have been the refusal of the IABA to accede to these requirements which caused him to resign. They were entitled to make that decision without undue external influence.

I hope that Billy does well in his new position. I am sure that he will. He might find that he has even less influence in his new role. Relatively speaking, very few people care about amateur boxing in the US.

You seem to be suggesting that Walsh was out of order in asking for a pay rise and increased autonomy and you mention them "not giving in to him", as if his demands were of the unreasonable variety.

By all accounts, they had messed him around since London 2012. His requests for more money and increased autonomy didn't come out of the blue, and yet the first time the IABA hear his requests, their attitude seems to have been "Off you go now pal, it was nice knowing you".

Why didn't they simply hammer out a deal with him in February? If we go along with the idea that they were quite justified in dragging things out for eight months, then the inference must be that Walsh's demands were indeed outrageous and unreasonable (not that anyone outside the IABA and their handful of supporters actually seems to believe this).

Donald Trump · 29-10-2015 10:28pm

Please do not make things up for the sake of trying to start an argument.

Strazdas wrote: »

You seem to be suggesting that Walsh was out of order in asking for a pay rise and increased autonomy and you mention them "not giving in to him", as if his demands were of the outrageous variety.

No, I said

Donald Trump wrote: »

The simple truth is that Billy Walsh was not happy with the conditions that he currently had in the job. Be that money or autonomy. Maybe he was wrong or maybe he was correct in what he wanted. I don't know.

I did not say "give in to him". If you are going to quote me then please quote me correctly. I said

Donald Trump wrote: »

He wanted more and they decided not to give it to him and so he moved on.

Strazdas wrote: »

Why didn't they simply hammer out a deal with him in February?

Maybe they tried and were not able to meet in the middle. Or maybe the fact that he was an employee, not one with a contract coming to an end, and that if nothing was changed on either side then the status quo would remain.

Strazdas wrote: »

If we go along with the idea that they were quite justified in dragging things out for eight months, then the inference must be that Walsh's demands were indeed outrageous and unreasonable (not that anyone outside the IABA and their handful of supporters actually seems to believe this).

Nobody said anything was outrageous. At least I did not because I do not know any details. Just because they did not grant him what he wanted does not mean that his requests were outrageous. Go and talk to your boss tomorrow. Tell him you want a 5% increase and if he says no does that prove that your request is outrageous?

Put yourself in the position of an employer. A staff members comes to you and says "hey, I got a big offer". Maybe you'd immediately match that offer without questioning or deciding whether it is actually a good idea for you to do so. Or maybe you'd be worried that it would set a precedent for other staff. Or maybe even that the same staff member who would come back after another 6 months and say "thanks for that last increase. By the way, *cough cough* I got another bigger offer *cough cough*.

Am i saying that Billy Walsh would do this? No. Of course not. But was it impossible that it might happen? Of course not.

As Billy might himself agree, you need discipline and authority in order to get results. Billy might have wanted more authority but the IABA itself also needs to keep its authority over Irish Boxing. It might have been as simple as a rock coming up against a hard place. Billy wanted more than they were willing to give. If they were wrong and made a mistake, then they are entitled to do so. It is their members organization. And members democratically elect them.

Strazdas · 29-10-2015 11:16pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

Nobody said anything was outrageous. At least I did not because I do not know any details. Just because they did not grant him what he wanted does not mean that his requests were outrageous. Go and talk to your boss tomorrow. Tell him you want a 5% increase and if he says no does that prove that your request is outrageous?

Put yourself in the position of an employer. A staff members comes to you and says "hey, I got a big offer". Maybe you'd immediately match that offer without questioning or deciding whether it is actually a good idea for you to do so. Or maybe you'd be worried that it would set a precedent for other staff. Or maybe even that the same staff member who would come back after another 6 months and say "thanks for that last increase. By the way, *cough cough* I got another bigger offer *cough cough*.

Am i saying that Billy Walsh would do this? No. Of course not. But was it impossible that it might happen? Of course not.

As Billy might himself agree, you need discipline and authority in order to get results. Billy might have wanted more authority but the IABA itself also needs to keep its authority over Irish Boxing. It might have been as simple as a rock coming up against a hard place. Billy wanted more than they were willing to give. If they were wrong and made a mistake, then they are entitled to do so. It is their members organization. And members democratically elect them.

In no way could this be compared to a regular employer - employee relationship though. The IABA are not a private company or there to make a profit (in fact they have virtually no income of their own) so the idea of their head coach asking for an increased salary is something very different to an
employee walking into his boss's office and requesting a pay rise.

Besides, the ISC were going to pay Walsh's salary in full which makes the IABA's claims that they were worried over his proposed pay increase extremely puzzling.

I'm not sure I would agree that granting Walsh more powers would have in any way threatened the IABA's authority. Interestingly, Christle and Carruth didn't even attempt this line of defence at any point in the last week. They tried to make out that their concerns were all about the financial aspects of Walsh's contract and this was the main sticking point.

Clearlier · 29-10-2015 11:47pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

Please do not make things up for the sake of trying to start an argument.

No, I said

I did not say "give in to him". If you are going to quote me then please quote me correctly. I said

Maybe they tried and were not able to meet in the middle. Or maybe the fact that he was an employee, not one with a contract coming to an end, and that if nothing was changed on either side then the status quo would remain.

Nobody said anything was outrageous. At least I did not because I do not know any details. Just because they did not grant him what he wanted does not mean that his requests were outrageous. Go and talk to your boss tomorrow. Tell him you want a 5% increase and if he says no does that prove that your request is outrageous?

Put yourself in the position of an employer. A staff members comes to you and says "hey, I got a big offer". Maybe you'd immediately match that offer without questioning or deciding whether it is actually a good idea for you to do so. Or maybe you'd be worried that it would set a precedent for other staff. Or maybe even that the same staff member who would come back after another 6 months and say "thanks for that last increase. By the way, *cough cough* I got another bigger offer *cough cough*.

Am i saying that Billy Walsh would do this? No. Of course not. But was it impossible that it might happen? Of course not.

As Billy might himself agree, you need discipline and authority in order to get results. Billy might have wanted more authority but the IABA itself also needs to keep its authority over Irish Boxing. It might have been as simple as a rock coming up against a hard place. Billy wanted more than they were willing to give. If they were wrong and made a mistake, then they are entitled to do so. It is their members organization. And members democratically elect them.

We've agreed before that it was a mistake for Mulvey to threaten the IABA's administrative funding if they didn't offer them contract to Billy. It was inappropriate, it stepped over the line and was outside of the remit of the ISC. What would have been and still would be appropriate is to review their administrative funding as the best reading of this is gross incompetence.

The IABA continue to insist that it was about salary. Billy and the ISC (who were brought in by the IABA to negotiate on this point) say it wasn't. You have to make a credibility judgement at this point because either Billy and the ISC are correct or the IABA are.

By the way it beggars belief that the IABA would receive a document from the ISC that didn't reflect the negotiation that they took part in. It's further impossible to imagine a scenario where should that have actually happened they wouldn't get back to the ISC and state as much.

The IABA lack credibility, competence or both. My own guess is that the IABA didn't want to relinquish control. I'm not in a position to judge the merits of that. I'm a lot more comfortable saying that they have made enough of a mess of handling it that you wonder about their ability to successfully continue to run the sport or at least control the HPU.

Strazdas · 30-10-2015 12:07am

Interesting snippet from yesterday's Dail hearing. John Treacey says the board of the IABA told him in August that any one of twenty different coaches could do the work of Billy Walsh :

http://www.thesun.ie/irishsol/homepage/sport/6714531/Not-Dil-that-hot.html

I don't doubt for a moment that they actually believe that. It would explain a lot of their actions this year and in the last week.

efb · 30-10-2015 12:46am

Strazdas wrote: »

Interesting snippet from yesterday's Dail hearing. John Treacey says the board of the IABA told him in August that any one of twenty different coaches could do the work of Billy Walsh :

http://www.thesun.ie/irishsol/homepage/sport/6714531/Not-Dil-that-hot.html

I don't doubt for a moment that they actually believe that. It would explain a lot of their actions this year and in the last week.

I'd say the problem is they believe it... Yes the most salient point is US Boxing offered him the contract, not anyone else in the IABA...

The IABA seriously undermined Billy with their actions and it reflects very poorly on them.

Joe_ Public · 30-10-2015 12:55am

efb wrote: »

I'd say the problem is they believe it... Yes the most salient point is US Boxing offered him the contract, not anyone else in the IABA...

The IABA seriously undermined Billy with their actions and it reflects very poorly on them.

Yes, I totally agree. They do believe it and they don't really get all the fuss that's created about the High Performance Unit, probably think it's overkill, too much money spent on it and on Billy Big Boots coaches. And whether we like it or not, it's a view not just confined to the IABA board as a glance back through this thread would show, plenty of people here wondering what all the fuss was about when the story broke, sure we're just losing one guy, what's the big deal, they'll appoint someone else and we'll all move on etc

It's the kind of attitude that invites the gradual slipping of standards, the fatal compromise of complacency, the thing Billy Walsh always went out of his way to guard against. There are some very good coaches out there but it takes a great coach or manager in whatever discipline - a Billy Walsh, a Brian Cody, a Willie Mullins - to ensure that never happens. They just don't get what they've lost in there and I don't suppose they ever truly will.

Strazdas · 30-10-2015 1:51am

efb wrote: »

I'd say the problem is they believe it... Yes the most salient point is US Boxing offered him the contract, not anyone else in the IABA...

The IABA seriously undermined Billy with their actions and it reflects very poorly on them.

Yes, that's what I was saying, that they fully believe this. It does explain nearly everything that has happened this year.

Strazdas · 30-10-2015 2:02am

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yes, I totally agree. They do believe it and they don't really get all the fuss that's created about the High Performance Unit, probably think it's overkill, too much money spent on it and on Billy Big Boots coaches. And whether we like it or not, it's a view not just confined to the IABA board as a glance back through this thread would show, plenty of people here wondering what all the fuss was about when the story broke, sure we're just losing one guy, what's the big deal, they'll appoint someone else and we'll all move on etc

It's the kind of attitude that invites the gradual slipping of standards, the fatal compromise of complacency, the thing Billy Walsh always went out of his way to guard against. There are some very good coaches out there but it takes a great coach or manager in whatever discipline - a Billy Walsh, a Brian Cody, a Willie Mullins - to ensure that never happens. They just don't get what they've lost in there and I don't suppose they ever truly will.

Eamonn Coghlan touched on this yesterday, referring to the "small mindedness" of the IABA, and he should know, having had a nightmarish time of dealing with committees when he tried his hand at sports administration.

Their comments are very revealing. Their mindset is along the lines of "What's the big deal? There are twenty boxing coaches in Ireland who could do Billy Walsh's work". They actually sounded perplexed at times in the last week at the huge fuss that was being created.

It would be like the board of the IRFU trying to force Joe Schmidt out of his job, adding he would be more than replaceable, that there would be dozens of rugby coaches out there who could do his job just as well.

Coghlan referred to small mindedness but I would add "mediocrity" too, these guys are incapable of seeing the bigger picture. Visionaries they are not.

walshb · 30-10-2015 9:07am

Joe_ Public wrote: »

It's the kind of attitude that invites the gradual slipping of standards, the fatal compromise of complacency, the thing Billy Walsh always went out of his way to guard against. There are some very good coaches out there but it takes a great coach or manager in whatever discipline - a Billy Walsh, a Brian Cody, a Willie Mullins - to ensure that never happens. They just don't get what they've lost in there and I don't suppose they ever truly will.

These points are very important, but maybe there are many Billy Walsh mindsets ready to take up the position. After reading all this and listening toboth sides I feel that Billy "talked" himself out of the position just as much as the IABA "talked" him out of it. He had issues, problems. That is part of life and work and people. Now, it seems that either those issues were too much, and were too much because the IABA were bang out of order towards Billy, or they were too much because Billy pushed too hard and forced the hand of the IABA. Forced the IABA to fight back and stand its ground. The ISC then got overly involved and created a bigger mess. They took sides instead of mediating. They took sides right for the get go. That was not right. And all because ONE man was having an employmemnt issue. They were happy to go along with everything when Billy was in the position.

Joe_ Public · 30-10-2015 9:47am

walshb wrote: »

These points are very important, but maybe there are many Billy Walsh mindsets ready to take up the position. After reading all this and listening toboth sides I feel that Billy "talked" himself out of the position just as much as the IABA "talked" him out of it. He had issues, problems. That is part of life and work and people. Now, it seems that either those issues were too much, and were too much because the IABA were bang out of order towards Billy, or they were too much because Billy pushed too hard and forced the hand of the IABA. Forced the IABA to fight back and stand its ground. The ISC then got overly involved and created a bigger mess. They took sides instead of mediating. They took sides right for the get go. That was not right. And all because ONE man was having an employmemnt issue. They were happy to go along with everything when Billy was in the position.

"Many Billy Walsh mindsets ready to take up the position." I honestly don't think you even believe this. I mean, no disrespect to Zaur but it's not the job he's suited for, too many distractions from what he's best at. If there's even one adequate replacement out there, well great, but I haven't heard anybody name him yet.

And it seems to me, it's fine for the IABA and their supporters to paint the ISC as villains, taking sides, provoking the IABA into reaction, going beyond their remit. But this isn't the case. They do their job which is to find an arrangement acceptable to both sides, this is what happens, and then that deal is scuppered because one side is changing terms as they go along - those are the facts! It's only after the process has completely broken down, when there's no prospect of agreement, that they express their frustrations in public. One ISC member makes an intemperate remark for which he later apologises, but we still have to endure a load of IABA bellyaching over it. It was one remark, the guy said sorry. Old, old news.

I'm just shaking my head at this comment: "They were happy to go along with everything while Billy was in the position." If you don't read or feel the need to read what's been said in statements and before committees, there's probably no point here. The ISC has repeatedly stated it was unhappy since at least the London Olympics, but what can it do? Come barging in, saying all this is wrong, IABA needs to get its house in order, and it's told to f'off, stop meddling in our business (which they can't even fund properly ffs). Look what happens when they are actually invited in to intervene, god only knows what bedlam would be unleashed if they did so uninvited. You show no appreciation of how the system actually works day to day.

I hate to say it, but I feel I'm been a bit broken down by the IABA supporters on here. In a very minor way, I think I'm getting a taste of how Billy Walsh must have felt in his job

walshb · 30-10-2015 10:19am

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I hate to say it, but I feel I'm been a bit broken down by the IABA supporters on here. In a very minor way, I think I'm getting a taste of how Billy Walsh must have felt in his job

I don't think I am an IABA supporter because I am somewhat fence sitting. I have been impartial here. I have praised Billy several times, as well as feeling that he may well have been more the victim in this affair.

I have no issue with people being for one side over the other as long as they analyse the facts from both sides Dobal Trump makes some very pertinent points. There is just so much nonsenes information in all of this. I will strip away all that and form an opinion. Nothing right or certyain with my opinion, just a belief.

If I was to break it down I'd say the root of all this was money-finances and jealousy and ego.Those three elements created this mess. The jealousy I reckon is a jealousy towards Billy and his success and public perception for that success. The money, without doubt this was an issue with Billy, as well as the IABA. The ego-wanting power was also something with Billy. He rocked the boat on this one. Was he entitled to rock the boat? Yes. But that doesn't mean he was right to, or that the IABA should have allowed themselves to be rocked.

And the ISC were the chiefs. Couple of big egos there muscling in far too much.

Joe_ Public · 30-10-2015 10:38am

walshb wrote: »

I don't think I am an IABA supporter because I am somewhat fence sitting. I have been impartial here. I have praised Billy several times, as well as feeling that he may well have been more the victim in this affair.

I have no issue with people being for one side over the other as long as they analyse the facts from both sides Dobal Trump makes some very pertinent points. There is just so much nonsenes information in all of this. I will strip away all that and form an opinion. Nothing right or certyain with my opinion, just a belief.

If I was to break it down I'd say the root of all this was money-finances and jealousy and ego.Those three elements created this mess. The jealousy I reckon is a jealousy towards Billy and his success and public perception for that success. The money, without doubt this was an issue with Billy, as well as the IABA. The ego-wanting power was also something with Billy. He rocked the boat on this one. Was he entitled to rock the boat? Yes. But that doesn't mean he was right to, or that the IABA should have allowed themselves to be rocked.

And the ISC were the chiefs. Couple of big egos there muscling in far too much.

Fair enough on a lot of that. But "The money, without doubt, was an issue with Billy." How many times does Billy have to say the money wasn't an issue for you to believe him? Why "without doubt", why are you so certain about that when you fence sit on so much else, that you are basically saying Billy isn't being truthful when he gives his account?

The fact of Irish sport is that if there was no ISC, and money was just doled out to the sports without any sense of accountability, it might as well just be flushed down a great big hole in the ground. It's not perfect and you'll always get organisations who, seemingly, can't arrange any funding for themselves and are happy to take as much government money as they can but then tell the overseers to butt out when questions need to be asked.

If you know your history, you'll know the ISC had a very troubled beginning in 1999 when the politicians were basically using it as a football, but it has gradually found its feet, made mistakes - including during this debacle - but all in all it is basically doing a very difficult and delicate job quite well. They're far from perfect, but they are very much entitled to a defence as much as the IABA in this issue. They have handled a tough situation pretty well imho.

walshb · 30-10-2015 11:18am

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Fair enough on a lot of that. But "The money, without doubt, was an issue with Billy." How many times does Billy have to say the money wasn't an issue for you to believe him? Why "without doubt", why are you so certain about that when you fence sit on so much else, that you are basically saying Billy isn't being truthful when he gives his account?
.

Billy started the money issue. He created this issue. That is agreed, no? He got a huge offer from the States. Presented it to IABA and it snowballed from there. Yes, according to Billy and ISC it was not about the money afterwards, but the IABA think differently. The ISC-Billy were happy to sweep the money-financials under the carpet, but no way was it a non issue just because they said so.

I believe Billy when he said it wasn't about the money. That's from his side, when all was covered for him as regards the ISC fudning him. All rosy. But the IABA weren't quite as rosy.

Joe_ Public · 30-10-2015 11:30am

walshb wrote: »

Billy started the money issue. He created this issue. That is agreed, no? He got a huge offer from the States. Presented it to IABA and it snowballed from there. Yes, according to Billy and ISC it was not about the money afterwards, but the IABA thinkk differently. They were happy to sweep the money-financials under the carpet, but no way was it a non issue just because they said so.

I'm depressed about the money issue, because it was the IABA who created the money issue, not the other way around. They did so by not paying Billy for the job he was doing, just for the sake - I'm guessing - of either saving a few quid or keeping him in his place, maybe both, two birds with one stone and all that. And that's not just my opinion. That's the verdict of the independent report commissioned after the 2012 Olympics, which the IABA participated in and signed off on. They were recommended to sort out Billys position there and then, which they patently failed to do. They created the conditions in which their employee's frustration and unhappiness was allowed to fester. They take the lion's share of the blame. I will argue this point until I am blue in the face.

To be honest, your whole position perplexes me. You're aiming daggers at the Sports Council, yet haven't given any specifiic instances of where they exceeded their brief or acted out of order. A few pages back, you conceded that the IABA went into negotiations without any intent to reach agreement - "going through the motions", were your exact words as I recall - and yet you don't seem to have come to the conclusion that this was an entirely dishonourable strategy and shines a very dim light on how the IABA conducts its business. Yet you seem to believe this but don't have any issues with the IABA over it. As I said, perplexing.

walshb · 30-10-2015 1:28pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

To be honest, your whole position perplexes me. You're aiming daggers at the Sports Council, yet haven't given any specifiic instances of where they exceeded their brief or acted out of order. A few pages back, you conceded that the IABA went into negotiations without any intent to reach agreement - "going through the motions", were your exact words as I recall - and yet you don't seem to have come to the conclusion that this was an entirely dishonourable strategy and shines a very dim light on how the IABA conducts its business. Yet you seem to believe this but don't have any issues with the IABA over it. As I said, perplexing.

Sorry, but I don't recall conceding anything. My language was never definite. I was asking questions and coming up with likely scenarios. Read back to see. You have misinterpreted me a few times now in different posts. That's not a criticism, just an observation.

Edit: If I was definite and conceding, then dissregard. I am open to correction, and have no problem holding my hand up.

Strazdas · 30-10-2015 1:44pm

walshb wrote: »

These points are very important, but maybe there are many Billy Walsh mindsets ready to take up the position. After reading all this and listening toboth sides I feel that Billy "talked" himself out of the position just as much as the IABA "talked" him out of it. He had issues, problems. That is part of life and work and people. Now, it seems that either those issues were too much, and were too much because the IABA were bang out of order towards Billy, or they were too much because Billy pushed too hard and forced the hand of the IABA. Forced the IABA to fight back and stand its ground. The ISC then got overly involved and created a bigger mess. They took sides instead of mediating. They took sides right for the get go. That was not right. And all because ONE man was having an employmemnt issue. They were happy to go along with everything when Billy was in the position.

But it's obvious what went wrong here. Billy Walsh is a phenomenally successful and world class boxing coach (the USA have just had him take over their amateur boxing progamme). As soon as the IABA got wind of the fact that the USA were looking for him and that he was seeking a payrise, they should have bent over backwards to secure him. That is what would have happened with any functioning and forward thinking board. The attitude should have been "This guy is absolutely brilliant, we must do everything in our power to keep him, to lose him would be a catastrophe".

Everything that happened subsequently would suggest they thought that "well, no, this guy is entirely replaceable and it would be far from a catastrophe if we lose him, he's just another cog in the wheel, and besides he's starting to get too big for his boots and we can't be having that."

Joe_ Public · 30-10-2015 1:58pm

walshb wrote: »

Sorry, but I don't recall conceding anything. My language was never definite. I was asking questions and coming up with likely scenarios. Read back to see. You have misinterpreted me a few times now in different posts. That's not a criticism, just an observation.

Edit: If I was definite and conceding, then dissregard. I am open to correction, and have no problem holding my hand up.

No that's fair enough, I can see you were leaving some wiggle room there, I've no wish to attach any false interpretations to what you were saying so dismiss what I said (although not the general point about the seriousness of entering discussions without an intention of doing business. I'm not even saying it's definite myself, only the IABA knows it themselves for certain. But I can definitely why people would arrive at that opinion).

Anyway, all this is getting to seem like old history now. I don't know where the story goes from here, if anywhere. Billy is gone, Zaur is in, there'll be a new guy probably after Rio and the whole thing will lurch on, and there'll be a crisis somewhere down the line, maybe very soon, and we'll have the arguments out again.

I know big Joe has called for an independent inquiry, but you know, I'll be bold enough to suggest the IABA not only don't want an inquiry but are fairly certain one will never be held anyway because the timing is just all wrong. Still I'd be hard pressed to suppress a chuckle if Ring came out today or tomorrow and called Joe's bluff on it and announced an immediate investigation. But there's too little to be achieved now for all the hassle it would cause. Cant and won't happen.

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

Comments