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

average_runner

walshb wrote: »

The fact that financials are mentioned so frequently leads me to believe that it was an issue, and no amount of trying to say it was not an issue makes it so. It had to be some issue.

This: "Billy Walsh showed incredible flexibility around the financial aspects."

That is damning. And, maybe the IABA were the ones who were out of order as regards the financials. I am not laying the blame on Billy's door. I am saying that financials was/were an issue.

Sorry but your so wrong on this one. Money was never the thing with this man. This is a man that loves boxing, loves the people he coached. The support he gave these guys was definitely not for the money.

IABA board should be all sacked asap. Billy had to get permission from the IABA before the talked to the media, who to those the IABA think they are.

walshb

Joe_ Public wrote: »

One of the lines from the papers that really stood out for me was: Walsh has never had a pension or any medical insurance. I mean, strewth, in this day and age! That really beggars belief as far as I'm concerned.

Indeed, and it is why the financials were very important. Now, which side were the "baddies" as regards the financial end of things?

K3v

walshb wrote: »

So without a doubt money and financials played a role.

You seem very fixated on the financial aspect of this whole sorry saga. The fact that the Irish Sports Council was footing the bill for his salary makes the financials a non issue for the IABA.

The dog on the street can see that it came down to control over Elite Performance Unit, Billy wanted autonomy, the IABA did not want to relinquish control over.

walshb

average_runner wrote: »

S Money was never the thing with this man. T

That is just incorrect. Money and financials played a part (possible past tense at this stage, but played a part nonetheless) in the discussions. That's a fact. Whether or not it was ironed out and agreed on is what is up for debate.

Juts to clarify on this: I am not having a go at Walsh for wanting to better himself or maybe get a better deal/package. If he felt that he was not being compenasted enough for his efforts then it is his right to look for something better from the IABA. But, it is their right to refuse, or to play hard ball. That's life. That's employment. That's profit and loss and expenses. If they ironed that out, great.

walshb

K3v wrote: »

You seem very fixated on the financial aspect of this whole sorry saga. The fact that the Irish Sports Council was footing the bill for his salary makes the financials a non issue for the IABA.

The dog on the street can see that it came down to control over Elite Performance Unit, Billy wanted autonomy, the IABA did not want to relinquish conrtol over.

Not fixated. Just pointing out that it played a role. Some here are saying it did not, or are really playing it down.

Joe_ Public

walshb wrote: »

Indeed, and it is why the financials were very important. Now, which side were the "baddies" as regards the financial end of things?

Ah, no. As I said, I respect your position re the IABA, but now you seem to be implying Billy Walsh was some kind of mercenary making outrageous financial demands. Of course money is important, why wouldn't it be, but it doesn't seem to have been the decisive factor. It's not why Billy Walsh walked. I don't know whether by accident or design but you are creating a straw man here.

average_runner

walshb wrote: »

That is just incorrect. Money and financials played a part (possible past tense at this stage, but played a part nonetheless) in the discussions. That's a fact. Whether or not it was ironed out and agreed on is what is up for debate.

Juts to clarify on this: I am not having a go at Walsh for wanting to better himself or maybe get a better deal/package. If he felt that he was not being compenasted enough for his efforts then it is his right to look for something better from the IABA. But, it is their right to refuse, or to play hard ball. That's life. That's employment. That's profit and loss and expenses. If they ironed that out, great.

But the IABA weren't funding any of the package

walshb

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Ah, no. As I said, I respect your position re the IABA, but now you seem to be implying Billy Walsh was some kind of mercenary making outrageous financial demands. Of course money is important, why wouldn't it be, but it doesn't seem to have been the decisive factor. It's not why Billy Walsh walked. I don't know whether by accident or design but you are creating a straw man here.

I am not implying that at all. Read my previous post in reponses to average runner. I put the word baddies in inverted commas.

Two/three sides discussing financials/employment. They cannot agree. It stands to reason that maybe one side was pushing too much, or one side wasn't budging enough.

Why is it so wrong to maybe think that it's possible that those within the IABA are playing fair or are as honorable and obliging as Walsh?

Is it not possible that Billy maybe demanded a little too much as regards a finacial package, and a little too much as regards his managemnet role within the HP team?

The view here so far is Billy the saint, IABA the devils. This view being perpetuated based off Billy's statements and some other views from people.

K3v

walshb wrote: »

Not fixated. Just pointing out that it played a role. Some here are saying it did not, or are really playing it down.

I know, I mean, who is John Treacy to say that money was not an issue in this debacle. Not as if his organisation was paying Billy's salary. :rolleyes:

walshb

average_runner wrote: »

But the IABA weren't funding any of the package

The financial aspect may be done and dusted. It seems the autonomy issue was a major concern.

There's more to a finacial package than we think. To suggest that the IABA were not funding (or losing out on anything) may be off. There is also the employment status issue to consider. How Billy was going to be employed within the IABA etc. A lot to discuss and think about before judging.

case885

Tune into radio 1, Sean o Rourke is talking to the President of the Connacht branch.
He believes its due to picking the team that Billy was upset about not pay and a clashing with a senior member of the IABA

gordongekko

walshb wrote: »

Not fixated. Just pointing out that it played a role. Some here are saying it did not, or are really playing it down.

A deal was agreed but the iaba didn't follow through with their part of the agreement so clearly money wasn't the issue

walshb

gordongekko wrote: »

A deal was agreed but the iaba didn't follow through with their part of the agreement so clearly money wasn't the issue

We have done the finacial issue to death.

The other issue is the autonomy.

Joe_ Public

walshb wrote: »

I am not implying that at all. Read my previous post in reponses to average runner. I put the word baddies in inverted commas.

Two/three sides discussing financials/employment. They cannot agree. It stands to reason that maybe one side was pushing too much, or one side wasn't budging enough.

Why is it so wrong to maybe think that it's possible that those within the IABA are playing fair or are as honorable and obliging as Walsh?

Is it not possible that Billy maybe demanded a little too much as regards a finacial package, and a little too much as regards his managemnet role within the HP team?

The view here so far is Billy the saint, IABA the devils. This view being perpetuated based off Billy's statements and some other views from people.

Honestly, I believe you're getting bogged down in the financial niceties and in trying to counter the perceived Billy love-in here. I think most of us here feel able to start from the position that when Walsh says quite emphatically that money wasn't a key factor we trust him and then look for the pertinent questions elsewhere. Are you suggesting he's lying when he says that?

This is the statement from Walsh that I'd like to see fleshed out. He may well have faults, but has never come across as anything other than a genuine, honest and, yes, humble individual to me:

"For me, it's just that there are simple things like dignity and respect with your role.

"And they've been dismantled over the last year."

walshb

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Honestly, I believe you're getting bogged down in the financial niceties and in trying to counter the perceived Billy love-in here. I think most of us here feel able to start from the position that when Walsh says quite emphatically that money wasn't a key factor we trust him and then look for the pertinent questions elsewhere. Are you suggesting he's lying when he says that?

This is the statement from Walsh that I'd like to see fleshed out. He may well have faults, but has never come across as anything other than a genuine, honest and, yes, humble individual to me:

"For me, it's just that there are simple things like dignity and respect with your role.

"And they've been dismantled over the last year."

We have discussed the finacial issue. Billy says it was never really about the finacials. That's his side.

Now, the other issue is the management within the HP team. I am not sure of the ins and outs of this side, other than Walsh maybe wanting more freedom and autonomy in the HP team. Was what he was wanting reasonable and fair? I don't know, and nor do the posters here. We can't make a call on that without details from the negotiations.

Joe_ Public

walshb wrote: »

We have discussed the finacial issue. Billy says it was never really about the finacials. That's his side.

Now, the other issue is the management within the HP team. I am not sure of the ins and outs of this side, other than Walsh maybe wanting more freedom and autonomy in the HP team. Was what he was wanting reasonable and fair? I don't know, and nor do the posters here. We can't make a call on that without details from the negotiations.

Last thing I'll - quite happily - say about the financials. Billy says it wasn't about money, that's the only side there. There's no other side to what Billy says was HIS motivation. You choose to believe him or you don't.

Of course, we don't know the ins and outs. We can deduce that Walsh was happy in his role up to the end of 2014, but things began to change soon after and the approach of USA Boxing brought these changes to a head. Seems there's enough media attention out there that we might get an in-depth analysis that is fair to all sides in one of the papers. But then if there's no input from the IABA in it, it'll just be dismissed as another Billy love-in.

walshb

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Last thing I'll - quite happily - say about the financials. Billy says it wasn't about money, that's the only side there. There's no other side to what Billy says was HIS motivation. You choose to believe him or you don't.

Of course, we don't know the ins and outs. We can deduce that Walsh was happy in his role up to the end of 2014, but things began to change soon after and the approach of USA Boxing brought these changes to a head. Seems there's enough media attention out there that we might get an in-depth analysis that is fair to all sides in one of the papers. But then if there's no input from the IABA in it, it'll just be dismissed as another Billy love-in.

The Billy praise, or love-in as you describe it is fine. No issue there. It's that, combined with the vitriol being thrown at the IABA which is wrong.

Anyway, this will be yesterday's news in no time. Personally I feel it's being oversensationalized. He's one man in a cog. Important? Sure. Irreplaceable? No!

Joe_ Public

walshb wrote: »

The Billy praise, or love-in as you describe it is fine. No issue there. It's that, combined with the vitriol being thrown at the IABA which is wrong.

Anyway, this will be yesterday's news in no time. Personally I feel it's being oversensationalized. He's one man in a cog. Important? Sure. Irreplaceable? No!

Over-sensationalised? Really? The most decorated coach in Irish Olympic history, a hugely popular and much-loved figure, quits his post in highly controversial circumstances and it shouldn't cause a fuss? Ok, it's arguable whether it should be leading the news headlines, but better than it being ignored which is the more frequent complaint when it comes to Irish amateur boxing.

I think what you're missing is the pattern here which is bigger than Billy Walsh himself. Gary Keegan, Jim Moore before him, both were treated disgracefully by the IABA and, if you take issue with that, I'll just shake my head and walk away. Same with Katie and Pete Taylor, the struggled they had with elements of their own association over the years is well documented. And going back, wonder how much thanks Nicholas Cruz ever got for steering the ship through some pretty bad times?

And let's remember: the IABA came in for some stern criticism in the wake of the London Games, by the independent consultants who conducted the debriefing. One of the recommendations was that power over the team be ceded to the HP head coach. Was this even ever considered? You referred to Dominic O'Rourke earlier. Remember when they tried to parachute him in over the head of Walsh a few years back? How did that work out exactly?

K3v

walshb wrote: »

We have discussed the finacial issue. Billy says it was never really about the finacials. That's his side.

You are correct, that is his stance, It is also the stance of John Treacy & Minister Michael Ring. There is more that just Billy's side and the IABA's side to this.

When you have the head of the Irish Sports Council come out and say they will have to be a review of the IABA actions, you have have to question the judgement of the IABA.

You say we are calling Billy a saint & the IABA are devils because we are only hearing one side of the story.

You have to realise there are 3 sides to this story; Billy Walsh, Irish Sports Council & the IABA. I don't think it is in the interests of a government run organisation to be castigating the IABA unless it is seriously warranted.

walshb

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Over-sensationalised? Really? The most decorated coach in Irish Olympic history, a hugely popular and much-loved figure, quits his post in highly controversial circumstances and it shouldn't cause a fuss? Ok, it's arguable whether it should be leading the news headlines, but better than it being ignored which is the more frequent complaint when it comes to Irish amateur boxing.

I think what you're missing is the pattern here which is bigger than Billy Walsh himself. Gary Keegan, Jim Moore before him, both were treated disgracefully by the IABA and, if you take issue with that, I'll just shake my head and walk away. Same with Katie and Pete Taylor, the struggled they had with elements of their own association over the years is well documented. And going back, wonder how much thanks Nicholas Cruz ever got for steering the ship through some pretty bad times?

And let's remember: the IABA came in for some stern criticism in the wake of the London Games, by the independent consultants who conducted the debriefing. One of the recommendations was that power over the team be ceded to the HP head coach. Was this even ever considered? You referred to Dominic O'Rourke earlier. Remember when they tried to parachute him in over the head of Walsh a few years back? How did that work out exactly?

Whatever happened with Keegan and Moore should not be used to investigate/extrapolate to this separate issue. That's in the past. It can be very unfair to use past events to bolster views on current ones. I understand the obvious wanting to do this, but the Billy Walsh situation is its own situation. It should be looked at and analysed and decided upon based off its own merits.

Joe_ Public

walshb wrote: »

Whatever happened with Keegan and Moore should not be used to investigate/extrapolate to this separate issue. That's in the past. It can be very unfair to use past events to bolster views on current ones. I understand the obvious wanting to do this, but the Billy Walsh situation is its own situation. It should be looked at and analysed and decided upon based of its own merits.

Judge: The issue before the court today is solely whether this man did viciously beat his wife as alleged.

Prosecutor: The court should bear in mind the accused has a history of violent assault against this woman and threatened to kill her on two previous occasions.

Judge: Out of order. The current matter should be looked upon on its own merits. Please strike those remarks from the record.

We'll have to fundamentally disagree here. My view would be the Billy Walsh situation should be parsed, analysed and summarily judged and then added to the record of history of strife and hostility that has reigned between the IABA and its HP wing since the very start in which the only constant is the management board of the IABA itself.

walshb

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Judge: The issue before the court today is solely whether this man did viciously beat his wife as alleged.

Prosecutor: The court should bear in mind the accused has a history of violent assault against this woman and threatened to kill her on two previous occasions.

Judge: Out of order. The current matter should be looked upon on its own merits. Please strike those remarks from the record.

We'll have to fundamentally disagree here. My view would be the Billy Walsh situation should be parsed, analysed and summarily judged and then added to the record of history of strife and hostility that has reigned between the IABA and its HP wing since the very start in which the only constant is the management board of the IABA itself.

Like I said, it's human nature to use past events against people to judge current ones. It can be misleasding, and it can lead to a false sense of what is right and wrong in the present.

Just because someone does something wrong in the past does not mean that what they did, or are doing in the now is wrong.

We are getting way off base here. Let's judge this issue on its merits.

Joe_ Public

walshb wrote: »

Like I said, it's human nature to use past events against people to judge current ones. It can be misleasding, and it can lead to a false sense of what is right and wrong in the present.

Just because someone does something wrong in the past does not mean that what they did, or are doing in the now is wrong.

We are getting way off base here. Let's judge this issue on its merits.

Fair enough. And like I said, we can agree to disagree. I certainly believe past history is interesting and relevant here without automatically prejudicing our views against one of the parties. And I don't disagree with your last statement. Let's see what comes out in the wash and then look with fresh eyes. And the Sports Council is under the microscope too. History tells us they're not beyond a bit of spin either and that's very relevant too.

efb

Walshb argument reminds me a lot of the no side in the Marref

Surrogacy!!!
-It's not about surrogacy
Why are people bringing it up?
- you are no one else is, and time is wasted


It's a diversionary tactic

walshb

efb wrote: »

Walshb argument reminds me a lot of the no side in the Marref

Surrogacy!!!
-It's not about surrogacy
Why are people bringing it up?
- you are no one else is, and time is wasted


It's a diversionary tactic

Well, still waiting to hear your inside information?

You arguments to date consist of Billy's right and the IABA are wrong!

efb

walshb wrote: »

Well, still waiting to hear your inside information?

I don't have inside information I said my dealings from being involved with the IABA

What is your position wifhin the IABA

efb

Oh so I don't take you up wrongly Walshb-- am I part of this 'mob' you speak of???

efb

walshb wrote: »

Well, still waiting to hear your inside information?

You arguments to date consist of Billy's right and the IABA are wrong!

Not as simplistic as that- the IABA agreed on a deal brokered by Independent arbitrators then went back on it without explanation leading to the resignation of our most successful sports manager

walshb

efb wrote: »

I don't have inside information I said my dealings from being involved with the IABA

What is your position wifhin the IABA

Ok, so you have no real evidence (on this situation) to be so sure that Walsh is right and the IABA are wrong. Grand! Unless your past-current dealings have led you to this conclusion?

walshb

efb wrote: »

Not as simplistic as that- the IABA agreed on a deal brokered by Independent arbitrators then went back on it without explanation leading to the resignation of our most successful sports manager

That's as much as anyone of us really have.