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

Joe_ Public · 23-10-2015 12:48PM

Dodge wrote: »

The press release was very amateurish. Lots of pub speak "well. now , let me tell you about that one..."

I wouldn't be getting too hung up on that issue.

Ah no, not saying it's a hanging offence, but it just leaps out at me from the page, everytime I see Sport Ireland when they mean the Sports Council. Just think the small details can tell a lot sometimes.

walshb · 23-10-2015 12:49PM

efb wrote: »

When was the question put to me? Please quote

Post 509.

brooke 2 · 23-10-2015 12:56PM

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 control over.

Who gives the Irish Sports Council money? The government (taxpayers) does. Should we match the thousands possibly offered by the Americans in their attempts to lure Billy as they prepare for Rio?

brooke 2 · 23-10-2015 12:59PM

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.

He must have employed a good PR company!
All Billy was missing was the halo!! ðŸ˜႒

efb · 23-10-2015 01:00PM

walshb wrote: »

Post 509.

I can't do numbers on mobile can't you quote it as requested???

price690 · 23-10-2015 01:00PM

brooke 2 wrote: »

Who gives the Irish Sports Council money? The government (taxpayers) does. Should we match the millions possibly offered by the Americans in their attempts to lure Billy as they prepare for Rio?

So you are saying that the IABA are making a stand for the tax payer?

Very noble indeed

SantryRed · 23-10-2015 01:00PM

That IABA statement is pure fudge. They didn't even mention anything about the agreement made and then pulled back 4 days later, and the reason for it. It's deflection, pure and simple. They had a go at ISC to make it about that, and move away from anything to do with Walsh.

efb · 23-10-2015 01:00PM

brooke 2 wrote: »

Who gives the Irish Sports Council money? The government (taxpayers) does. Should we match the millions possibly offered by the Americans in their attempts to lure Billy as they prepare for Rio?

Who mentioned matching us money???

price690 · 23-10-2015 01:08PM

SantryRed wrote: »

That IABA statement is pure fudge. They didn't even mention anything about the agreement made and then pulled back 4 days later, and the reason for it. It's deflection, pure and simple. They had a go at ISC to make it about that, and move away from anything to do with Walsh.

This in a nutshell. Throw in a red herring and the actual issue itself gets forgotten.

The fact they took so long to get their story straight is an indicator. If they were confident in their own position and believed what they said they would have been defending their position from the off.

If they were so outraged about the comments from ISC about reviewing funding then they would have spoken out sooner.

The fact they issue their stance the day after Billy Walsh left the country is convenient aswell. Id say some lawyer advised them to sling mud at the government agency, rather than a man who has been held in high regard by the public.

What better way to divert public attention. They cant spin it that they simply didn't want Walsh but they can play the "government agency (ISC) are incompetent" card.

walshb · 23-10-2015 01:17PM

efb wrote: »

I can't do numbers on mobile can't you quote it as requested???

Don't sweat it. Here it is again: Do you think the IABA are liars for claiming that Walsh was motivated by money?

If they didn't claim this then disregard. I was under the impression that they did.

brooke 2 · 23-10-2015 01:19PM

efb wrote: »

We have an expectation - the Irish taxpayer is pumping A lot of money into it

Exactly. How much of it is enough to hold on to Billy??

Joe_ Public · 23-10-2015 01:24PM

walshb wrote: »

Don't sweat it. Here it is again: Do you think the IABA are liars for claiming that Walsh was motivated by money?

If they didn't claim this then disregard. I was under the impression that they did.

They suggested in the statement that it was to do with money matters, that's fair enough. They're entitled to claim that, without being accused of lying, and they're also entitled to be wrong.

But the flipside is: is Billy lying when he says his decision wasn't ultimately motivated by the money? That's a yes or no there. He's either telling the truth or he's lying. Pick a side.

walshb · 23-10-2015 01:33PM

Joe_ Public wrote: »

They suggested in the statement that it was to do with money matters, that's fair enough. They're entitled to claim that, without being accused of lying, and they're also entitled to be wrong.

But the flipside is: is Billy lying when he says his decision wasn't ultimately motivated by the money? That's a yes or no there. He's either telling the truth or he's lying. Pick a side.

Billy's language was very much open to interpretation. He did not say money was not an issue. He said it was never 'really' an issue. No real question of lying or not. We all know money played a part. That is the important part. How important a part is is dependent on how much we believe in the sides. One side implying it was very important, and the other disagreeing with that.

Joe_ Public · 23-10-2015 01:33PM

"Billy’s resignation letter and public announcement were so definite that the organisation, again in the interests of Irish boxing as a whole, had no choice but to accept that resignation, with regret."

Another line that caught my eye in the statement. Whatever about the resignation letter, did Billy's public announcement strike you as a man who was emphatically burning his bridges with his employers? Sounded more like someone who was leaving under duress to me, but maybe they just think it was all an act.

Shurimgreat · 23-10-2015 01:35PM

walshb wrote: »

Billy said it was never 'really' about money. Don't be so naive.

Your posts about it being just about money are pretty pathetic really.

I'd trust Billy Walsh all day long over what you have to say. Unless you have talked to him directly and he said to you directly its about money, you're talking out your ar*e.

Joe_ Public · 23-10-2015 01:36PM

walshb wrote: »

Billy's language was very much open to interpretation. He did not say money was not an issue. He said it was never 'really' an issue. No real question of lying or not. We all know money played a part. That is the important part. How important a part is is dependent on how much we believe in the sides. One side implying it was very important, and the other disagreeing with that.

Ok I can buy that. Walsh says it wasn't his ultimate motivation and I don't have reason to disbelieve him. It's all fine for the IABA as long as they can reduce it to the money angle, that suits their particular agenda, but the issue is a lot more complex than that and if the other parties choose to respond to the statement, which they surely will, my guess is they'll be back under the cosh again.

vicwatson · 23-10-2015 01:37PM

IABA make a statement as soon as Billy is on the plane. Joke

Shurimgreat · 23-10-2015 01:38PM

walshb wrote: »

Billy's language was very much open to interpretation. He did not say money was not an issue. He said it was never 'really' an issue. No real question of lying or not. We all know money played a part. That is the important part. How important a part is is dependent on how much we believe in the sides. One side implying it was very important, and the other disagreeing with that.

More nonsense. How can you convert him saying it was never really about money into it being all about money is beyond me. The guy doesn't have to answer to people like you trying to put words in his mouth.

Walsh wanted to take a contract long ago, the IABA kept stalling, changing their mind, changing the goalposts. This is not to mention some of the outrageous stipulations they wanted to put in his contract such as requiring permission to speak to the media.

To me and a lot of people their approach stinks of constructive dismissal, making it impossible for someone to do their job and forcing them out. They tried their best to make Walsh's position untenable. That's what he means when he says it wasn't about money.

walshb · 23-10-2015 01:39PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Your posts about it being just about money are pretty pathetic really.

I'd trust Billy Walsh all day long over what you have to say. Unless you have talked to him directly and he said to you directly its about money, you're talking out your ar*e.

When you can show that I claimed it ONLY about money get back to me. Otherwise your post is pathetic.

Strazdas · 23-10-2015 01:43PM

efb wrote: »

Kieran Mulvey is fair more qualified to speak than the nepotism ridden IABA

He has brokered many successful pay agreements

A highly respected figure too, with many years of experience as a negotiator and troubleshooter.

Shurimgreat · 23-10-2015 01:46PM

walshb wrote: »

When you can show that I claimed it ONLY about money get back to me. Otherwise your post is pathetic.

I ask anyone to read back over your recent posts. Money this, money that, money played a part, money as a motivation.

Most people accept it wasn't about money, and they accept the IABA made a b*lls of it.

No amount of apologetics from you will change that.

When Billy Walsh says it wasn't about money, most people believe him. The issues are out in the open. Contracts were offered and then rescinded by the IABA.

So stop putting it about it was about money, or money was a significant factor, when clearly it wasn't.

Billy Walsh is not on this thread to defend himself and he doesn't need someone like you putting words in his mouth such as "money was a factor".

Let's stick to facts and proof, not gossip and speculation about motivations.

walshb · 23-10-2015 01:52PM

Ok, so the IABA as an organisation have gotten it completely wrong. To them money was a major factor. I see, to possibly agree and have a personal view that this may be true is pathetic....ok I'll bow out. I mean, who are the IABA in all of this? Their view and opinion hardly means anything. They're far too insignificant in this saga.......most peole accept that money wasn't the issue, or animportant issue. Most posters here, yes.

Just in case some here struggle with what I mean by thus, my tongue is firmly planted in my cheek.

Shurimgreat · 23-10-2015 01:55PM

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Ok I can buy that. Walsh says it wasn't his ultimate motivation and I don't have reason to disbelieve him. It's all fine for the IABA as long as they can reduce it to the money angle, that suits their particular agenda, but the issue is a lot more complex than that and if the other parties choose to respond to the statement, which they surely will, my guess is they'll be back under the cosh again.

Not sure why you would buy that. The implication by certain posters who seem to be making stuff up is that Billy Walsh ultimately turned down the contract because of money. There is no evidence to support that. There is evidence to support the fact there were a number of dubious aspects to his contract such as not being allowed to speak to the media without permission and a couple other ones which made his job a bit of a joke. The guy deserves respect and he certainly deserves a competent boxing board to back him up.

Shurimgreat · 23-10-2015 01:57PM

walshb wrote: »

Ok, so the IABA as an organisation have gotten it completely wrong. To them money was a major factor. I see, to possibly agree and have a personal view that this may be true is pathetic....ok I'll bow out. I mean, who are the IABA in all of this? Their view and opinion hardly means anything. They're far too insignificant in this saga.......most peole accept that money wasn't the issue, or animportant issue. Most posters here, yes.

Just in case some here struggle with what I mean by thus, my tongue is firmly planted in my cheek.

Are you even familiar with the circumstances of all this? The ISC were paying Walsh's salary, not the IABA. They had nothing to do with the money situation. You are just trying to spread nonsense about Walsh's motivations.

What is your relationship to the IABA? Because you seem to be keen to show them in the best possible light, bending the facts to suit while you do it.

walshb · 23-10-2015 02:00PM

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Ok I can buy that. Walsh says it wasn't his ultimate motivation and I don't have reason to disbelieve him. It's all fine for the IABA as long as they can reduce it to the money angle, that suits their particular agenda, but the issue is a lot more complex than that and if the other parties choose to respond to the statement, which they surely will, my guess is they'll be back under the cosh again.

But one could argue that it suits Billy's agenda to say it was never 'really' about money.

In all this debating far too many posters, you not included want a complete condemnation of the IABA. Anything short of that and they're on the anti poster-anti IABA war-path. It's so ridiculous.

walshb · 23-10-2015 02:04PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Are you even familiar with the circumstances of all this? The ISC were paying Walsh's salary, not the IABA. They had nothing to do with the money situation. You are just trying to spread nonsense about Walsh's motivations.

What is your relationship to the IABA? Because you seem to be keen to show them in the best possible light, bending the facts to suit while you do it.

Considering you couldn't even get Katie's surname correct, and your implying that the U.S. are a powerhouse Olympic boxing nation, well, I'd say that I am at least on par with you on this discussion.

Shurimgreat · 23-10-2015 02:07PM

The Billy Walsh stand off with the IABA is not just a recent thing. It's been going on for a year now.

During that year, there have a lot of outrageous antics from the IABA. In all of it the clear impression is they couldn't get rid of Walsh fast enough. Money as Billy said was never a factor. The main factor from his point of view is that the IABA are clowns, but he's not going to come out and say that. They couldn't put together a half decent contact. They can't even put together a half decent website. They showed the guy, the most successful boxing and sporting coach in our history, zero respect. This is what he refers to. Walsh cares about Irish boxing. The guy I would say, would do the job for a pittance. He deserved a decent contract, not the shambolic one offered him with all its farcical stipulations.

Walshb, you speak like someone who works for the IABA to be honest. That's not a compliment by the way.

marienbad · 23-10-2015 02:07PM

Dodge wrote: »

If the contract was agreed between Walsh (and his solicitors) and the IABA, then that's all that matters (to me)

EDIT; Should say I don't think anyone comes out of this with credit. IABA are clearly well meaning amateurs. ISC are clearly power hungry. Walsh is clearly an egomaniac.

Shame it had to happen at all

This is a quite an astonishing interpretation Dodge .

Dodge · 23-10-2015 02:09PM

That's fine. You seem to know more than I do.

I just don't think anyone has come out of this well. The bottom line is that Irish boxing is worse off now than it was a month ago. That has to be put right

hardCopy · 23-10-2015 02:10PM

What I've been able to follow so far:

Walsh and Mulvey have both said that the financial offer was always going to be lower than the US package. Walsh said he was happy to take a lower salary if the other issues could be resolved. IABA have said that a lot of the negotiations that went on centred around money.

Funding was in place from the ISC for the salary he was offered, the "other issues" seem to have been the stumbling block.

Neither side has been completely clear on what exactly this included but there seems to be consensus that these relate to the amount of autonomy granted to Walsh (ratification of teams, permission to address the media).

The IABA say they acceded to many of these demands, but don't say which ones they could not agree to.

Have I missed anything?

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

Comments