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

Tiriel

As per previous warning, personal attacks are not condoned here. Infractions issued.

It's a pity we can't just participate in discussion without it becoming an attack.

walshb

Joe_ Public wrote: »

You've also touched on a point here that still utterly baffles me. Given that they are all such successful and sharp businessmen (no irony intended here), how is it those IABA men could have turned out to be such crap negotiators when trying to keep a coach they apparently didn't want to lose?

Isn't that what this Oirechteas hearing is going to try and figure out? Maybe it's not needed for many here, as they have made their minds up; minds made up even before the IABA had a chance to have their say!

Deise Vu

Joe_ Public wrote: »

You've also touched on a point here that still utterly baffles me. Given that they are all such successful and sharp businessmen (no irony intended here), how is it those IABA men could have turned out to be such crap negotiators when trying to keep a coach they apparently didn't want to lose?

That is the $64K question I am waiting to find out while the rest of the country apparently believes one side. There will be emails, draft contracts, minutes of meetings, telephone conversations. Why do so many people have a problem with evidence? I keep hearing the Sports Council side of things that 'they thought everything was sorted and they were going to back Billy all the way'. Give us the paperwork!

Joe_ Public

Deise Vu wrote: »

That is the $64K question I am waiting to find out while the rest of the country apparently believes one side. There will be emails, draft contracts, minutes of meetings, telephone conversations. Why do so many people have a problem with evidence? I keep hearing the Sports Council side of things that 'they thought everything was sorted and they were going to back Billy all the way'. Give us the paperwork!

I don't think it works like that. These were confidential documents, memorandums of agreement etc, don't think they can just be released for public consumption. But they've obviously been leaked to the papers, as is the way of these things, so it's not as if the information, as incomplete as it is, isn't out there for people to make reasonably informed judgments at this stage.

We've had ISC appearance in Leinster House, Billy Walsh interviews, ISC statement, IABA statement, IABA interviews, Billy counter statement, more ISC statements, in depth newspaper articles etc etc By far the worst, most incomplete version given was the IABA's despite the fact they withdrew to their bunker and spent the guts of a week figuring out their strategy. Maybe they'll surprise us today by producing some magic document out of a hat to show Billy and the ISC were acting the maggot all along but, you know what, the tiniest little hunch tells me that just won't happen.

Strazdas

Joe_ Public wrote: »

You've also touched on a point here that still utterly baffles me. Given that they are all such successful and sharp businessmen (no irony intended here), how is it those IABA men could have turned out to be such crap negotiators when trying to keep a coach they apparently didn't want to lose?

I don't believe for one moment it was incompetence that allowed them lose Walsh. They had a whole eight months of negotiations and *still* lost him. If they were in any way serious about keeping him, it would have happened.

This business of to-ing and fro-ing and altering and re-altering his contract and adding new demands and clauses was madness (some would suggest it was all done to force Walsh out).

Joe_ Public

"Senator Paschal Mooney accused the IABA of failing to act in the national interest in relation to the debacle surrounding Walsh’s departure and likened the affair to an act of “national sabotage”.
Addressing the IABA’s chief executive and chairman, Senator Mooney said: “People have called outside that you might consider your position."

Groan. That's just precisely the kind of stuff the IABA wants to hear.

Joe_ Public

So a new and interesting tactic introduced today. Let's just all think of a big figure, roll it out and see how everyone gasps. 1.6 million. Wow, that's a big number. Was Billy Walsh looking for 1.6 million a year or something? Don't know but 1.6 million is still a very big number indeed.

Strazdas

Joe_ Public wrote: »

So a new and interesting tactic introduced today. Let's just all think of a big figure, roll it out and see how everyone gasps. 1.6 million. Wow, that's a big number. Was Billy Walsh looking for 1.6 million a year or something? Don't know but 1.6 million is still a very big number indeed.

I've no idea where they got that figure from. It sounds like it must be his entire salary plus all bonuses for the next few years or something.

Were they finally conceding they had an issue with the terms of his contract by the way? John Treacy claims the issue of finance is just a smokescreen on their part and the main sticking points were things like power and autonomy.

Joe_ Public

Strazdas wrote: »

I've no idea where they got that figure from. It sounds like it must be his entire salary plus all bonuses for the next few years or something.

Late evening, a smoke-filled room somwhere in Dublin 8.

Joe: Ok lads, we’ve got a big day ahead of us tomorrow, we can’t let these government gobdaws get the better of us again. I still think we’re missing something lads, an ace up our sleeve. This is our last chance. We have to nail it.

Board member: But it’s all about the money, isn’t it Joe? That’s always been our line. We’re not changing it now are we boss?

Joe: We’re not changing anything boys. We just need something with a bit more….you know, punch. Like a big figure or something. Something that would soften their cough. Put that ignorant poltroon Treacy down on his knees again.

Board man 1: How about 3 million, Joe? Now that’d make their eyes water.

Joe: [whackes him over head with newspaper] Arra give over you amadawn. Where would the likes of us ever get 3million. Who do you think we are? Horse Sport Ireland or something?

Board Man 2: What about 2 million Joe, or a million and a half Joe?

Joe: [mimicking in a sarcastic high-pitched voice] ‘What about 2 million Joe, or a million and a half Joe?’ Listen my good man, there’s a reason I’m sitting in the top chair and you’ll be buying the first round in the Sunset Inn afterwards. We don’t say 2m and we don’t say a million and a half. We say 1.6 million. You see that way, it’ll make em think it’s not made up and they’ll be ducking for cover, won’t know what hit them. When you see Treacy’s glasses all fogged up, you’ll know they’re in trouble. Make no mistake boys. Tomorrow the fox becomes the hound. We’ll eat them without salt. No prisoners.

Board Men 1, 2 and 3: Hon Joe!

Hup ya boyo Joe, total genius.

Brilliant, Joe, totally brilliant.

[ Exit stage left humming the tune to Rocky as they head for the pub]

Joeseph Balls

Strazdas wrote: »

I've no idea where they got that figure from. It sounds like it must be his entire salary plus all bonuses for the next few years or something.

Were they finally conceding they had an issue with the terms of his contract by the way? John Treacy claims the issue of finance is just a smokescreen on their part and the main sticking points were things like power and autonomy.

Heard it on the radio this evening. IABA said they didn't want to be reckless with public money..
http://m.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/boxing/iaba-claim-that-agreeing-to-16m-deal-to-keep-billy-walsh-would-have-been-irresponsible-34149717.html

Ctrl Alt Delete

Sport Ireland say his salary was agreed at 125k a year but IABA say 1.6 but cannot provide a breakdown of this figure.

In otherwords was pulled from thin air, joke of an governing body

Joe_ Public

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Sport Ireland say his salary was agreed at 125k a year but IABA say 1.6 but cannot provide a breakdown of this figure.

In otherwords was pulled from thin air, joke of an governing body

Wasn't his basic salary 95k, the rest topped up in bonuses etc? I think that's been pretty well established. In fact, I believe his salary was only being realigned in line with what high performance directors in all sports were entitled to, so the line about not wishing to be reckless with public money seems a bit of a joke.

Sporting organisations actually refusing government money - what kind of bizarro world are we living in here?

Strazdas

Joeseph Balls wrote: »

Heard it on the radio this evening. IABA said they didn't want to be reckless with public money..
http://m.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/boxing/iaba-claim-that-agreeing-to-16m-deal-to-keep-billy-walsh-would-have-been-irresponsible-34149717.html

Interesting to read that Carruth as CEO of the IABA spoke very little at the meeting today, despite being nominally the supremo of the board.

Are they finally admitting they had a problem with giving Walsh a new contract? They seem to have been practically denying this outright for the last week.

efb

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Sport Ireland say his salary was agreed at 125k a year but IABA say 1.6 but cannot provide a breakdown of this figure.

In otherwords was pulled from thin air, joke of an governing body

An old Anglo trick? Pulling figures out of their arßes!

Joe_ Public

efb wrote: »

An old Anglo trick? Pulling figures out of their arßes!

In fairness I can completely understand where they're coming from. I was once thinking of employing a part-time cleaner in my home but, upon reflection, I decided that €100,000 was a reckless use of my funds.

Donald Trump

Strazdas wrote: »

Interesting to read that Carruth as CEO of the IABA spoke very little at the meeting today, despite being nominally the supremo of the board.

Are they finally admitting they had a problem with giving Walsh a new contract? They seem to have been practically denying this outright for the last week.

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

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).

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.

Donald Trump

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I don't think it's a bad thing to have a guy in that position who has no direct sporting background and so is less likely to be associated with any paritcular agenda or favour any one side. I do agree his handling of this situation hasn't been great and he has a bit to learn from it, but the persistent IABA agenda to attack Mulvey and the ISC as if they are the real villains of the piece here is a bit disingenuous and transparent. I don't think it's distracting anybody from where the real issues lie.

Des Fitzgerald, I assume, would fill a similar role on the IABA board, don't think he has any boxing background that I'm aware of, though I could be wrong.

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!

efb

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!

Why?

walshb

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

efb

The IABA seem to want to everyone to believe that...

Joe_ Public

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

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

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

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

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

Joe_ Public

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

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

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

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

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.