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

walshb · 22-10-2015 02:57PM

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Well, I'd be more alarmed by the inability to put a decent website in place - we're talking about a recently revamped one here - but take the point. I use to wind up some Kilkenny friends by referring to their star wing-back as Tommy Welch, never failed to drive them nuts.

The webiste is a lot improved from years gone by, but yes, still very mickey mouse IMO. Needs a brush up on the old English more than anything.

Joe_ Public · 22-10-2015 03:05PM

walshb wrote: »

The webiste is a lot improved from years gone by, but yes, still very mickey mouse IMO. Needs a brush up on the old English more than anything.

I hope this isn't getting off-topic. But if I was a CEO I'd ensure a first-rate website, it doesn't cost much and just shows pride and professionalism in your organisation. But they don't even have a full-time PRO so how could you expect a great website - another example if you ask me of poor governance. You're right in that it has improved at least, but for some reason the High Performance section is the worst part of it, where all the typos seem to be. If I was paranoid, I might try and read something into that

price690 · 22-10-2015 03:36PM

walshb wrote: »

The way it's going sack the lot of them and let Billy run it as he sees fit.

you sound just like Michael Carruth did on the radio its uncanny.

Trying to make it look like you are being impartial and trying to play devils advocate.

Maybe you just like to go against the grain alot of the time I don't know, but your defence of the IABA is comedic at this stage.

Billy Walsh is just one man, but its almost not even the point at this stage. You are reading between the lines alot of the time to imply slight on the ISC/Minister for Sport, you even "read between the lines" that Billy maybe wanted to much money.

As each of the arguments were rendered redundant, you come up with something new everytime in order to deflect attention away from IABA's lack of transparency.

Simple question- Why has the CEO not come out and addressed the claims made that he shook on an agreement, only to refuse to put it to his board of directors?

As you seem to like to do, if you read between the lines there are potentially 2 answers

1) he is not addressing this issue as thats exactly what happened, and he in turn wrongly feels he doesn't need to explain himself

or alternatively

2) This is not what happened at all and the ISC are talking rubbish, which makes it all the more baffling that a strong rebuttal was not issued immediately.

You would surely have to think the delay in saying anything of note is a pure sign that these goons need to get their story straight in the face of a media backlash?

gordongekko · 22-10-2015 04:10PM

walshb wrote: »

What answer will make you happy?

You have now asked that twice.

Ill ask it a third time and see if you actually answer it

So sack the isc and leave the iaba alone??

Ctrl Alt Delete · 22-10-2015 04:13PM

walshb wrote: »

Then one man, who is a very important man in terms of position suddenly has an issue, and the ISC are stepping in claiming it's all down to the IABA and its governance-transparency, and its "gross disrespect."

But here is the big rub. It wasn't a sudden issue it's been ongoing for some time no?

walshb · 22-10-2015 04:16PM

gordongekko wrote: »

Ill ask it a third time and see if you actually answer it

So sack the isc and leave the iaba alone??

You've had your two shots. Not my problem that you're not comprehending.

walshb · 22-10-2015 04:17PM

price690 wrote: »

you sound just like Michael Carruth did on the radio its uncanny.

Trying to make it look like you are being impartial and trying to play devils advocate.

Maybe you just like to go against the grain alot of the time I don't know, but your defence of the IABA is comedic at this stage.

Billy Walsh is just one man, but its almost not even the point at this stage. You are reading between the lines alot of the time to imply slight on the ISC/Minister for Sport, you even "read between the lines" that Billy maybe wanted to much money.

As each of the arguments were rendered redundant, you come up with something new everytime in order to deflect attention away from IABA's lack of transparency.

Simple question- Why has the CEO not come out and addressed the claims made that he shook on an agreement, only to refuse to put it to his board of directors?

As you seem to like to do, if you read between the lines there are potentially 2 answers

1) he is not addressing this issue as thats exactly what happened, and he in turn wrongly feels he doesn't need to explain himself

or alternatively

2) This is not what happened at all and the ISC are talking rubbish, which makes it all the more baffling that a strong rebuttal was not issued immediately.

You would surely have to think the delay in saying anything of note is a pure sign that these goons need to get their story straight in the face of a media backlash?

Did the CEO shake on the agreement?

gordongekko · 22-10-2015 04:27PM

walshb wrote: »

You've had your two shots. Not my problem that you're not comprehending.

Is it that you are trolling on this thread??

walshb · 22-10-2015 04:30PM

gordongekko wrote: »

Is it that you are trolling on this thread??

There was a warning given on the thread regarding trolling accusations. So it seems in this case comprehension is the issue.

walshb · 22-10-2015 04:36PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

But here is the big rub. It wasn't a sudden issue it's been ongoing for some time no?

So it seems. Hence why I asked why ISC were-are funding an organisation that is in their view and others' view not capable of acceptable governance. Was it a case of them not really caring due to the boxers bringing us results? And now that a very important man is jumping ship they are all on the case making out that they give a fcuk?

howiya · 22-10-2015 05:14PM

walshb wrote: »

Did the CEO shake on the agreement?

Why did the agreement never make it to the boardroom of the IABA?

Ctrl Alt Delete · 22-10-2015 05:15PM

walshb wrote: »

So it seems. Hence why I asked why ISC were-are funding an organisation that is in their view and others' view not capable of acceptable governance. Was it a case of them not really caring due to the boxers bringing us results? And now that a very important man is jumping ship they are all on the case making out that they give a fcuk?

That's exactly what it is in my opinion and I said as much earlier in the thread.

I'm fair certain ISC turned a blind eye but the problem with that for the IABA is that a blind eye being turned is only good so long as nothing major happens.

Now that something major has happened the ISC gets to pull the trigger.

I thought IABA was to make their statement today no?

gordongekko · 22-10-2015 05:19PM

walshb wrote: »

There was a warning given on the thread regarding trolling accusations. So it seems in this case comprehension is the issue.

It was a question not an accusation. But as usual no answers are given.

Is there any chance you'll reveal you association to the iaba??

Joe_ Public · 22-10-2015 05:26PM

walshb wrote: »

So it seems. Hence why I asked why ISC were-are funding an organisation that is in their view and others' view not capable of acceptable governance. Was it a case of them not really caring due to the boxers bringing us results? And now that a very important man is jumping ship they are all on the case making out that they give a fcuk?

You're suggesting the Sports Council don't care about Irish boxing? That they don't give a fcuk? You've been pulling people up left, right and centre for making wild statements about the IABA, but that's as bad as anything I've seen said on this thread in fairness.

Shurimgreat · 22-10-2015 05:27PM

walshb wrote: »

The exact kneejerk reaction I would expect from a casual or non boxing fan. Not saying you are that.

There is absolute no guarantee that any of our boxers even win a bout in Rio with or without Walsh. It's that competitive, as well as very subjective.

So Katie Walsh or Michael Conlon or Joe Ward won't win a bout? Walsh and Conlon will be favourites for their division and rightly so.

I follow a lot of sports by the way. There's nothing knee jerk about it. The probability of medals with Walsh in charge of the program was high. That probability has diminished in my view. All reorganisations take time and Walsh's main strength was dealing with the political aspects and protecting his boxers from idiots inside and outside the game. Will the next man be as good? Rio is only 10 months away, less than a year. So its legitimate to ask will there be implications and if there are then yes heads must roll.

We made huge strides under Walsh so it would be a shame to go back to the also rans you seem to think is acceptable and normal.

walshb · 22-10-2015 05:36PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

So Katie Walsh or Michael Conlon or Joe Ward won't win a bout? Walsh and Conlon will be favourites for their division and rightly so.

I follow a lot of sports by the way. There's nothing knee jerk about it. The probability of medals with Walsh in charge of the program was high. That probability has diminished in my view. All reorganisations take time and Walsh's main strength was dealing with the political aspects and protecting his boxers from idiots inside and outside the game. Will the next man be as good? Rio is only 10 months away, less than a year. So its legitimate to ask will there be implications and if there are then yes heads must roll.

We made huge strides under Walsh so it would be a shame to go back to the also rans you seem to think is acceptable and normal.

I will say it again. In amateur boxing there is no guarantee that any of our qualified boxers will win a bout.

I would have some belief that they will win bouts, and possibly medals. But the sport is so competitive that you'd be foolish to be over confident in medals.

Shurimgreat · 22-10-2015 05:39PM

walshb wrote: »

Yes, but people drew conclusions a little bit too early. That is fair enough, but the OTT conclusions that were so very anti IABA is what I find wrong.

Anyway, what about my point regarding the ICS funding them? If they are, or were incapable and not transparent etc, why did they get funding in the first place? Surely they had to qualify.......?

People indeed have drawn their conclusions. They've concluded the IABA are hopeless and not fit for purpose.

The Americans who routinely come top of Olympics medals tables and are the recognised powerhouse of the Olympics headhunted Walsh and were prepared to do what it took to get him.

So Walsh is good enough for the Americans but not the Irish?

The IABA can't run a proper website and aside from that had only one other important job, keep Billy Walsh and despite having a year to sort it out managed to screw it up.

If they don't issue a statement today the game is up for them and they are even more hopeless than we thought.

Shurimgreat · 22-10-2015 05:41PM

walshb wrote: »

I will say it again. In amateur boxing there is no guarantee that any of our qualified boxers will win a bout.

I would have some belief that they will win bouts, and possibly medals. But the sport is so competitive that you'd be foolish to be over confident in medals.

Its not a lottery ffs. Its about proper elite training and preparation which deliver results. We all know its competitive and thats why you need to be fully prepared including having a stable coaching staff. The more you are prepared the more you increase your chances.

walshb · 22-10-2015 05:45PM

[QUOTE=Shurimgreat;97469388]Its not a lottery ffs. Its about proper elite training and preparation which deliver results. We all know its competitive and thats why you need to be fully prepared including having a stable coaching staff. The more you are prepared the more you increase your chances.[/QUOTE]

Who said it was a lottery? Simple: No matter what preparations are in place and whatever people are in place the sport is that competitive that medaling is a very tough task. Winning bouts is also tough. But, you want to misinterpret that simple point, fine.

walshb · 22-10-2015 05:47PM

gordongekko wrote: »

It was a question not an accusation. But as usual no answers are given.

Is there any chance you'll reveal you association to the iaba??

When you sort your comprehension issues we may proceed.

walshb · 22-10-2015 06:02PM

Btw, Katie will be a favorite for gold if things progress they way they usually do with Katie. WCs next year. Let's see how she fares there first.

Conlon may not be a favorite. Certainly not the kind of favorite that Katie will be.

walshb · 22-10-2015 06:07PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

So Katie Walsh or Michael Conlon or Joe Ward won't win a bout? Walsh and Conlon will be favourites for their division and rightly so.

Who's this Katie Walsh you speak of? She participate in one of these sports that you follow?

Joe_ Public · 22-10-2015 06:08PM

Been racking my brain for a few IABA beauties over the past few years and came up with these. Surely more to be added to the list:

1. The unmitigated disaster of the National Championships being moved from Citywest in either 2012 or 2013.

2. The humiliation of the Taylors when they learned during a press conference that the Euro Championships weren't being staged in Dublin.

3. The fiasco of the "homecoming" after the London Olympics.

4. The treatment of Pete Taylor - only finally gave him a deal in 2010 and only a year by year deal at that, funded by the Sports Council. Not sure about his current status.

5. The fiasco of Katie's fight on a Brian Peters undercard that the IABA tried to stop.

6. Refusing to give Billy Walsh the HP director title even though he has done the job since Beijing (not an employment contract expert but I'm certain Walsh would have a case to take to a tribunal here and win hands down)

7. The Dominic O'Rourke parachute disaster.

8. The humiliation of Gary Keegan in Beijing.

9. The treatment of Jim Moore who developed the youth academy.

10. I'm certain there was also a fcuk-up over a men's Euro Champs to be held in Dublin but the details are foggy.

11. Just remembered the internationals against France that were a total shambles, after which Paddy Barnes went off on one!

Shurimgreat · 22-10-2015 06:12PM

walshb wrote: »

Who's this Katie Walsh you speak of? She participate in one of these sports that you follow?

Katie Taylor...its been a long day, we've all had them.

Anyways, you are going to extraordinary lengths to defend the IABA.

You make it sound like anyone could do Billy Walsh's job or there are any number who can now step into his shoes.

You need to recognise he is/was an asset we can ill afford to lose and we have just lost him.

Joe_ Public · 22-10-2015 06:20PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

You make it sound like anyone could do Billy Walsh's job or there are any number who can now step into his shoes.

This, crucially, is what the IABA believes. Seems to me it's got to the stage for them where it's anyone but Billy. There's probably a view there that the conveyor belt is in operation and any half-decent coach will keep it rolling. Sounds like amateur thinking but, remember, most of them are actually amateurs so maybe not too surprising.

walshb · 22-10-2015 06:21PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Katie Taylor...its been a long day, we've all had them.

Anyways, you are going to extraordinary lengths to defend the IABA.

You make it sound like anyone could do Billy Walsh's job or there are any number who can now step into his shoes.

You need to recognise he is/was an asset we can ill afford to lose and we have just lost him.

One of those days for me too.

As to Walsh. Plenty posts of mine praising him.

Let's not pretend that all this adulation and praise from people is due to them knowing exactly what he does every day in the HP unit. Most are basing it off boxers winning medals.

As to others being able to do the job. Well, read some more posts and you'll see that it's not all that odd a belief. Barnes and Dunne are two that seem very confident in the view. I am sure that they're not alone.

Finally. Just because I am not slating the IABA does not mean I am anti Walsh. Read more posts to see this.

slow · 22-10-2015 06:23PM

howiya wrote: »

Why did the agreement never make it to the boardroom of the IABA?

That's the €130, 000 question...

Joe_ Public · 22-10-2015 06:25PM

Any white smoke from Dublin 6 yet? Maybe there's an executive meeting tonight?

slow · 22-10-2015 06:29PM

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Any white smoke from Dublin 6 yet? Maybe there's an executive meeting tonight?

Dead men walking.

barney4001 · 22-10-2015 08:08PM

in todays irish mail it stated that the I A B A recieves around 1.5 million euro a year from the tax payer through the sports council and spends almost 760,000 euro on staffwages and salaries,i wonder just how many I A B A officials attend the various boxing championships around the world as this would also come out the grants,the politions on their world wide meeting all is charged to their expence accounts so i am sure any officials in boxing do the same thing, when some of this money could have been used to retain Billy Walsh and co

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

Comments