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

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