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

Joe_ Public · 23-10-2015 02:11PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

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.

I meant I could buy it as somebody's opinion. Not that I necessarily agree with it. I think it's disingenuous to suggest money wasn't a factor - it's as much the IABA's fault for it being so because they had been under-paying Walsh for years - because I accept it was, but when Billy says there were other more critical factors, then I accept that. Seems obvious to me that was the case.

Shurimgreat · 23-10-2015 02:11PM

walshb wrote: »

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.

I didn't say the US were a powerhouse Olympics boxing nation, again putting words in people's mouths. I said the US were a powerhouse Olympics nation, which covers all Olympics sports. They want the best of the best across all their Olympics sports and with Walsh on board their women's boxing will inevitably become a world force, perhaps not in Rio but in years to come.

I notice you have a habit of playing the man by the way.

marienbad · 23-10-2015 02:11PM

walshb wrote: »

Like I said. This was and is about money. And no amount of ISC disguising and deflecting and covering changes that. Whoever was footing the bill is irrelevant. Billy wanted X, and theIABA likely didn't believe he was worthy of it. No matter who stepped in to pay it may not have been enough for the IABA. It began about money and it ended about money. These issues mostly do. All the autonomy and other stuff was just a part of the mess. The IABA and Walsh have given their sides of this mess. I see no winners here, and for me the ISC come out the worst

sources please , or is this more reading between the lines ?

Joe_ Public · 23-10-2015 02:14PM

hardCopy wrote: »

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?

All told you're pretty much spot on where we are. The IABA statement this morning doesn't really add anything hugely to the mix, beyond letting us know of its own intransigence. No mention of any outside factors other than money in their description of the negotiations, so we know they were being selective in the details they gave.

Shurimgreat · 23-10-2015 02:14PM

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I meant I could buy it as somebody's opinion. Not that I necessarily agree with it. I think it's disingenuous to suggest money wasn't a factor - it's as much the IABA's fault for it being so because they had been under-paying Walsh for years - because I accept it was, but when Billy says there were other more critical factors, then I accept that. Seems obvious to me that was the case.

The money question had nothing to do with the IABA. His salary was outside IABA funding and came separately from the ISC. Walsh my understanding was happy with the money, had agreed as much with the ISC and minster for sport.

So all that was left was the contract. My understanding is no contract was offered to Walsh. He can't sign up without a contract.

If he was offered a contract and rejected it fair enough. But no contract was offered. It was the height of incompetence by the IABA.

Shurimgreat · 23-10-2015 02:16PM

marienbad wrote: »

sources please , or is this more reading between the lines ?

Its all reading between the lines and putting his own spin on things with walshb. No sources, no facts, no evidence, just made up unsourced speculation designed to show others in a bad light.

Joe_ Public · 23-10-2015 02:20PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

The money question had nothing to do with the IABA. His salary was outside IABA funding and came separately from the ISC. Walsh my understanding was happy with the money, had agreed as much with the ISC and minster for sport.

So all that was left was the contract. My understanding is no contract was offered to Walsh. He can't sign up without a contract.

If he was offered a contract and rejected it fair enough. But no contract was offered. It was the height of incompetence by the IABA.

Well, fair point. Although just because salary was coming from ISC doesn't mean it has nothing to do with IABA, like I don't agree with salary of Ireland football boss even though Denis O'Brien covers it, or half of it anyway. But it wouldn't be my opinion that Billy's "demands", as the IABA call them, are outlandish anyway. They are just in line with what a guy in his positino, and with his achievements, should be getting.

If that's true that no contract was ever offered to him, that's a serious question for IABA to answer.

SantryRed · 23-10-2015 02:20PM

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.

How can money be an issue when the ISC are providing funding for it? And anyways, regardless of money being an issue, they didn't even address the fact that they agreed a contract and then pulled it four days later. The fact they didn't even mention this says it all.

price690 · 23-10-2015 02:22PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Its all reading between the lines and putting his own spin on things with walshb. No sources, no facts, no evidence, just made up unsourced speculation designed to show others in a bad light.

Until you appear to be anti-IABA, then reading between the lines is a foolish exercise.

With all due respect to WalshB, he is a good poster on the boxing forum. Its not a personal dig, but he does always like to go against the grain or general consensus on pretty much every topic.

So I wouldn't put his stance down to having links in the IABA.

e02bf0c5 · 23-10-2015 02:22PM

I'm starting to come around to the idea that it was about money.

Not Billy Walsh asking for more money though, more that the IABA weren't happy that he would be paid more than they were - but that's pure speculation as I have no idea who the board are let alone how would they get paid.

If it was a case that Billy was holding out for more money for such a long period while knowing he had a better offer in the sidelines wouldn't reflect well on his character.
The numerous people who seem to hold him in high regard suggest that is highly unlikely.

walshb · 23-10-2015 02:25PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I didn't say the US were a powerhouse Olympics boxing nation, again putting words in people's mouths. I said the US were a powerhouse Olympics nation, which covers all Olympics sports. They want the best of the best across all their Olympics sports and with Walsh on board their women's boxing will inevitably become a world force, perhaps not in Rio but in years to come.

I notice you have a habit of playing the man by the way.

To be fair I did think that you possibly meant that, hence my use of the word implying. I had a feeling you'd clarify that. The U.S certainly are a powerhouse Olympic nation. One Sport really declining is their boxing.

Shurimgreat · 23-10-2015 02:27PM

price690 wrote: »

Until you appear to be anti-IABA, then reading between the lines is a foolish exercise.

With all due respect to WalshB, he is a good poster on the boxing forum. Its not a personal dig, but he does always like to go against the grain or general consensus on pretty much every topic.

So I wouldn't put his stance down to having links in the IABA.

I have no problem with people going against the grain. But this is more a case of crossing a line and attributing motives to individuals who are not here to defend themselves. Lines like that should not be crossed.

He has been constantly biased towards IABA, that needs to be made clear. Although I anticipate an attempt to change that perception now.

Look, Billy Walsh owes no apology to anyone. He has deserves respect and thanks for what he done.

Implying he is a money grabbing mercenary or similar is frankly well beyond the pale. He has made it clear its not about money. Everyone except the incompetents who run the IABA accept it wasn't about money.

Its time for the IABA board to be cleared out. They are utterly hopeless and not fit for purpose.

walshb · 23-10-2015 02:29PM

Who is Billy Roche?

Katie Walsh and Billy Roche.....classic!

Dodge · 23-10-2015 02:31PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Implying he is a money grabbing mercenary or similar is frankly well beyond the pale. He has made it clear its not about money. Everyone except the incompetents who run the IABA accept it wasn't about money.

Hold on now. The whole catalyst for this contract debacle is money (the US offer). To dismiss the notion that it had ANY part to play is as foolish as deciding it was the only factor.

Joe_ Public · 23-10-2015 02:31PM

e02bf0c5 wrote: »

I'm starting to come around to the idea that it was about money.

Not Billy Walsh asking for more money though, more that the IABA weren't happy that he would be paid more than they were - but that's pure speculation as I have no idea who the board are let alone how would they get paid.

If it was a case that Billy was holding out for more money for such a long period while knowing he had a better offer in the sidelines wouldn't reflect well on his character.
The numerous people who seem to hold him in high regard suggest that is highly unlikely.

The board is an amateur body, suppose they would get expenses but not salaried, they have a full-time CEO, though. Still, I believe what you say has merit. We know they disliked the all the media attention lavished on Billy, so it's fair enough they'd find his proposed salary raise distasteful too.

price690 · 23-10-2015 02:32PM

e02bf0c5 wrote: »

I'm starting to come around to the idea that it was about money.

Not Billy Walsh asking for more money though, more that the IABA weren't happy that he would be paid more than they were - but that's pure speculation as I have no idea who the board are let alone how would they get paid.

If it was a case that Billy was holding out for more money for such a long period while knowing he had a better offer in the sidelines wouldn't reflect well on his character.
The numerous people who seem to hold him in high regard suggest that is highly unlikely.

You are probably right. Their are alot of people in Irish boxing (fighters included) who have a case of green eyed monster when they see the praise Billy Walsh seems to get.

Boxing is obviously an individual sport and the fighter is the one who has to do the business, so any talk of a medal drought now that Walsh as gone, probably grinds their gears.

I would also imagine that alot of the suits in the IABA probably baulked at the wage being offered and maybe don't rate Billy as anything more than a head coach. The crux of this dispute is their refusal to recognise him as HP Director. And the salary was probably that of a HP director rather than a Head coach.

Michael Carruth, Bernard Dunne, Phil Sutcliffe etc.. have all been backhanded in their compliments of Walsh, in fairness they are right in that he is only one man, but Walsh has worn many different hats in the role he fulfilled. It went beyond being a head coach.

Id say some of the names above probably fancy themselves as being a successor, they probably feel Billy Walsh is no more qualified than they are. The problem for them being, that he is infinitely more qualified and successful.

it comes down to jealousy, noses being put out of joint by the perception that Walsh was responsible for alot of the medal success. They are looking to make a statement that Billy Walsh is just a cog in the wheel.

Shurimgreat · 23-10-2015 02:32PM

walshb wrote: »

Who is Billy Roche?

Katie Walsh and Billy Roche.....classic!

Oh grow up FFS. I'm trying to juggle a number of things here including work and posting on here so a lot of my posts are rushed.

walshb · 23-10-2015 02:33PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Oh grow up FFS. I'm trying to juggle a number of things here including work and posting on here so a lot of my posts are rushed.

That's one sensible post, anyway.

Now, maybe show me where I implied that Billy was a money grabbing mercenary? Little OTT me thinks.

Shurimgreat · 23-10-2015 02:38PM

Dodge wrote: »

Hold on now. The whole catalyst for this contract debacle is money (the US offer). To dismiss the notion that it had ANY part to play is as foolish as deciding it was the only factor.

He said repeatedly it wasn't about money. Everyone pretty much agreed including the IABA it wasn't about money. It was more about the non financials.

So those on the inside say it wasn't about money. While those on the outside say it was about money. What gives?

You cannot project motives onto people.

In my view, Walsh could care less about the money. He cares about Irish boxing and giving it a good chance in Rio.

efb · 23-10-2015 02:38PM

walshb wrote: »

Who is Billy Roche?

Katie Walsh and Billy Roche.....classic!

How hunty

Joe_ Public · 23-10-2015 02:39PM

price690 wrote: »

You are probably right. Their are alot of people in Irish boxing (fighters included) who have a case of green eyed monster when they see the praise Billy Walsh seems to get.

Boxing is obviously an individual sport and the fighter is the one who has to do the business, so any talk of a medal drought now that Walsh as gone, probably grinds their gears.

I would also imagine that alot of the suits in the IABA probably baulked at the wage being offered and maybe don't rate Billy as anything more than a head coach. The crux of this dispute is their refusal to recognise him as HP Director. And the salary was probably that of a HP director rather than a Head coach.

Michael Carruth, Bernard Dunne, Phil Sutcliffe etc.. have all been backhanded in their compliments of Walsh, in fairness they are right in that he is only one man, but Walsh has worn many different hats in the role he fulfilled. It went beyond being a head coach.

Id say some of the names above probably fancy themselves as being a successor, they probably feel Billy Walsh is no more qualified than they are. The problem for them being, that he is infinitely more qualified and successful.

it comes down to jealousy, noses being put out of joint by the perception that Walsh was responsible for alot of the medal success. They are looking to make a statement that Billy Walsh is just a cog in the wheel.

That is a key point: "The crux of the dispute is their refusal to recognise him as HP Director"

That cannot be emphasised enough in my opinion. That is the biggest failure of governance right there. If they truly valued their man, they would not have let that situation develop, crazy. I'm not sure but I think his salary 77k was a head coach's salary. So he should have been on more for the director job.

efb · 23-10-2015 02:39PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Its all reading between the lines and putting his own spin on things with walshb. No sources, no facts, no evidence, just made up unsourced speculation designed to show others in a bad light.

To be expected- boxers rarely escape his caustic criticism

Strazdas · 23-10-2015 02:40PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

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.

Much more than a year in fact. Several sports journalists have pointed out this week that this nonsense from the IABA vis a vis Billy Walsh has been brewing for the the last four to six years.

Shurimgreat · 23-10-2015 02:42PM

walshb wrote: »

That's one sensible post, anyway.

Now, maybe show me where I implied that Billy was a money grabbing mercenary? Little OTT me thinks.

Ok great, I think finally you are coming around to the view that Walsh did not accept or reject the contract because of a money issue and that money was not the reason why he accepted or rejected a new deal. That's good enough for me if you accept that. Walsh said it wasn't about money, and that's good enough for me.

The issue from day 1 was non financials. Walsh and everyone was happy with the money element. People say he was offered twice as much by the Americans but realistically giving up on living at home, etc. you'd want more than twice a salary to do that.

Anyways I'm not going to harp on about it.

Dodge · 23-10-2015 02:42PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

In my view, Walsh could care less about the money. He cares about Irish boxing and giving it a good chance in Rio.

That's your view from meeting and chatting with him, is it?

I just don't see how anyone can claim this to be good v evil or right v wrong. Seems to be a load of factors and all sides dripping what they want into the public

I think there's enough blame to go round for nearly everybody. And it needs investigating and clearing up

Strazdas · 23-10-2015 02:44PM

Joe_ Public wrote: »

That is a key point: "The crux of the dispute is their refusal to recognise him as HP Director"

That cannot be emphasised enough in my opinion. That is the biggest failure of governance right there. If they truly valued their man, they would not have let that situation develop, crazy. I'm not sure but I think his salary 77k was a head coach's salary. So he should have been on more for the director job.

Excellent article on this very point here :

http://www.businesspost.ie/backwards-thinking-cost-ireland-billy-walsh/

The IABA in their utter mediocrity and incompetence were incapable of seeing the true brilliance of Billy Walsh as a coach and leader.

Joe_ Public · 23-10-2015 02:52PM

Strazdas wrote: »

Excellent article on this very point here :

The IABA in their utter mediocrity and incompetence were incapable of seeing the true brilliance of Billy Walsh as a coach and leader.

One major weakness of that piece, Irish boxing was nowhere before Billy took over? Well Billy only took over after the Olympics where they'd won 3 medals. I'd give most of the credit for the resurrection pre-Beijing to Gary Keegan, he put the whole program together.

marienbad · 23-10-2015 03:00PM

Joe_ Public wrote: »

One major weakness of that piece, Irish boxing was nowhere before Billy took over? Well Billy only took over after the Olympics where they'd won 3 medals. I'd give most of the credit for the resurrection pre-Beijing to Gary Keegan, he put the whole program together.

And where is he now ?

walshb · 23-10-2015 03:02PM

marienbad wrote: »

And where is he now ?

Who cares? Plenty of success since his departure.

price690 · 23-10-2015 03:03PM

Strazdas wrote: »

Excellent article on this very point here :

http://www.businesspost.ie/backwards-thinking-cost-ireland-billy-walsh/

The IABA in their utter mediocrity and incompetence were incapable of seeing the true brilliance of Billy Walsh as a coach and leader.

One thing I do find a little bit annoying in the midst of all of this, its the journalism.

So many outspoken journalists acting like they give a sh*te. Its poor quality stuff pretty much revolving around "we won loads of medals at the olympics, therefore Billy walsh is great".

The argument put to the IABA (who do need dragging into the 21st century) is a very one dimensional one. If I see another journalist liken it to Joe Schmidt not being able to select his team (I mean really, surely they can do better than stealing each others soundbites), i'll go mad.

I'm very much in the Billy Walsh camp on this one, but id love the journalists to delve into this area of team selection. Maybe uncover a few instances of disagreement between IABA and Walsh. From the outside looking in, our top fighters always make the major championships by virtue of the national seniors. You cannot really say that there are fighters hard done by in terms of not making these squads, they pick themselves for the most part.

Do Billy/IABA want to bring fighters who are not national champions to the Euros/Worlds? You needed to qualify for the worlds this year so again, committee ratification means damn all.

In terms of fighters being hard done by, this can only be done by judging at a national level in the national elite seniors.

There are so many red herrings out there, and I don't think alot of the news reports and journalist articles we see fully understand how the sport works or the real issue. Its very one dimensional 2+2=4, billy wins medals and hes gone etc... outrage etc...

In order to IABA to be fully held to account in the future we need proper transparency but also a better quality of journalist in this area. Boxing is always paid lip service in the media in this country, patted on the head for being the most successful irish sport, but how many dedicated writers have we got?

It would be great to see some very specific questions put to the IABA, to cut through their bluster and bull because I have a feeling that they know the general media have zero idea of the real issues apart from a successful coach walking.

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

Comments