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

walshb wrote: »

And to have that view is not at all odd. IF Billy was asking for more authority and power and say, that doesn't mean he should have gotten it. Whether or not he was not being given adequate power and respect is open to interpretation, depending on who you believe.

Well the IABA decided he shouldn't have gotten it. And now he's gone. As for respect, it's hard to see how an employee doing a job he isn't being recognised or paid commensurately for is indicative of respect. Seems to me the IABA and their families, and I'm guessing you, believe he was being shown enough respect, everybody else thinks he wasn't

walshb wrote: »

Well, I have posted a few times in Billy's defence. Hand on heart I'd be more inclined to believe that he was given a rough ride. I have said this afew times. In matters like this, with all the he said-she said it is very difficult to apportion blame accurately. IMO some here are just far too OTT against one side.

In truth, we should never have heard a single word about this. If the IABA were a professional and well run organisation, we would be hearing nothing about contract negotiations or tensions between the head coach and the board, certainly not in a scenario where that head coach was delivering phenomenal sporting results.

The fact that we've been hearing all about it in the media for ages tells us that something was horribly wrong behind the scenes and that Walsh was coming up against gross incompetence and amateurism.

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Whatever about all the he said, she said business, the fact is all sides in this farce have had their go at explaining their version of events and I can't imagine anyone disagreeing that the weakest, the one full of holes and selective cherry picking of events, was the IABA's. If people hadn't made their minds up before, I wouldn't blame them for doing so on the basis of that.

The reaction to all this has been quite overwhelming, to the point where I don't think I've seen anyone saying they believe the IABA's version over Billy's.

The meeting in front of the Oireachtas committee next week is virtually pointless, as everyone knows that whatever the IABA have to say on the matter will be complete BS.

I am sorry to see Billy Walsh leave.

The Sports Council should not be stepping in and trying to force any organization to hire or not hire their staff. They can of course decide to withhold their funding but must have consistent approach to all sporting organizations

I do not think that one man should have absolute power over selection of people to represent Ireland. I do not know whether that was a sticking point but I have read stories online and heard interviews where it was at least implied.

The Boxing team performance is down to individual performances. It is not like rugby or soccer where you might not pick the "individually best" 11 as in that case you are trying to build a team that is greater than the sum of it's parts. If you are Jack Charlton and you decide to leave Liam Brady on your bench then you can justify that somehow based on overall team performance. If someone is the best boxer at their weight, proven by winning the seniors, and/or box-offs, they should get their place on the team. I do not see a problem in principle with having to have a selection ratified. This is a reasonable control to have in place. I would like to know for definite how,for example, Athletics Ireland chose their athletes. I think that that is by a selection committee. And I don't hear the Sports Council calling for them to appoint one director who should have sole power to select all athletes for all events.

The IABA is a grassroots organization and I would hate to see a complete disconnect between the national selections and the local and provincial levels. People have mentioned that somehow the Sports Council should take the High Performance Section away from the IABA. That should never be done. It should be left in the hands of the people who nurture the boxers and the structure, not handed over to some pencil pushing carpetbaggers who see more potential Olympic medals on the horizon. That comment is directed at the Sports Council, not Billy Walsh of course. Billy has given his life to the sport from the ground up.

I do not have any connection to the IABA. I was an ordinary member of a local club but that was almost a decade ago. I do not have any connections to any of the parties involved. I have met Joe Christle maybe twice, but again, not within the last decade or so. I found him to be a extremely intelligent person and an absolute gentleman. He would not know or remember me though. I never met Fergal Carruth. I never met Billy Walsh. I met Gary Keegan once or twice. His name has been mentioned and I thought that was an extremely big loss to the organization when he left, more so than Billy Walsh now. I think it is disgraceful to read people commenting online, who probably never heard of any of these people, acting like know-it-alls and denigrating individuals who they probably had not known existed until a few weeks ago. Of course, there will be some people who know them, but in the main most people have probably just lapped up what they read in the tabloids over the last couple of weeks and are now experts in all things boxing.

I read in Vincent Hogans article that Billy was offered something like 115k to be a contractor and 95k to remain a staff member. The Sports Council might have been paying his wages currently, but unless they committed to providing that support indefinitely,I would understand any potential reticence to the IABA locking themselves into a potentially expensive contract that they might not be able to afford. This is not to mention the possible knock-on effects of other staff looking to benchmark themselves against any raises. And this is the body responsible for an amateur sport where coaches/trainers/referees all over the country give their time for free. It is like the GAA in that sense (ok, GAA refs might get a few quid to cover expenses but that's harmless ....boxing refs can't accept any money)

I think that overall it is a sorry situation and a loss for Irish boxing,but not an insurmountable one. It's a bit of a mess. Like when you know two people who are breaking up and it's done very publicly but you also know that it has got to a stage where that is the only option. I hope that Billy does well in the US. He will have his work cut out as amateur boxing is in a bad state there. I also hope that the Irish team continues to prosper and improve and I am sure that they will do so.

But, Sports Council, keep your noses out please and let the people who know the sport, run the sport

efb wrote: »

IABA are almost entirely funded by the taxpayer

Great. I'm looking forward to seeing the proof of that. Maybe it was only in my club where they used to take a few Euro (only 2 Euro mind) a week from the kids and parents would try to get sponsorship from local businesses and organize fundraising events.

Someone should have told them that the mythical taxpayer would have picked up the bill!

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Has they actually intimated they'll definitely turn up? Dont think they can be forced to appear, though would not seem the smartest move to decline the invitation. But as you say, it's fairly pointless now, only a chance for a few politicians to do some grandstanding and hope it gets on the camera.

They will indeed, Carruth confirmed so in one of his interviews yesterday. Interestingly though, they will be required to provide documentary proof for all of their claims re. Billy Walsh and so will Sport Ireland, so things could potentially get rather awkward for the IABA. Best thing that could happen would be if it could be shown that the IABA were being 'economical with the truth' (I'm being polite here of course).

efb wrote: »

€2 a week covers fcuk all

Yes, you are correct. What is your point?

Why would you ask little kids, some of them from basically very deprived backgrounds to bring that every week when they could have just sent the bill to Jimmy taxpayer?

2 Euro a week would give 100 Euro in the year. Not a huge amount but would have been around the price of a set of competition gloves or maybe 2 or three pairs of sparring gloves that the kid could use for the year.

Do you think that because some government funds are distributed to the coaches and expenses of those who represent the national team, that those administrators who probably already have been given a cushy number by the same government, should have more say in the organization than the people who are keeping it running.

And 2 Euro a week per kid might not necessarily be a flippant amount to throw away to everyone

efb wrote: »

€2 a week covers fcuk all

Oh, and I noticed you sidestepped my point about looking for the proof that the IABA is almost entirely funded by the taxpayer.

If you mean the administrative expenses of the people in the Stadium, you might be correct. I do not know. But you are wrong, wrong and wrong again about the organization and structure of Irish boxing as a whole

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The comparison between the FAI and Irish Boxing is not a relevant one. The FAI along with the IRFU and GAA are funded by the Sports Council with specific grassroots investment in mind and they are answerable as to how that money is spent. FAI officials have probably spent even more time in front of public accounts committees than the bankers. Politicians love grilling them. No government funding goes into the payment of managerial salaries. And you have to have a Sports Council, no country serious about elite sport and maintaining standards would fail to see the necessity of an overseer. Whether it could be better in conducting its business is another matter, though it's definitely a lot better than it used to be.

The FAI were where the IABA are now around 30 years ago and further back. It's been well documented how shambolic the running of Irish football was in decades past (the FAI board comprised amateurish clowns who were hopelessly ill equipped to be in the business of sports administration and we saw all of the petty feuds and politicking and back biting that we've witnessed this week).

Clearlier wrote: »

The ISC has no direct role (unless invited I guess) in deciding on what coaches are hired by a sporting organisation. It has a role in ensuring that a sport is run well. If the IABA had followed through on what Billy Walsh suggests that they thought at the first meeting to discuss his terms and conditions and just said no to him - we'd prefer to bring someone else in then although a lot of eyebrows would have been raised there wouldn't have been any raised eyebrows.

The issues that the ISC have with the IABA are around the process where agreements were struck and reneged on and people were mislead at best. Even the statement that they made after taking several days to put it together stinks of misdirection and half truths. The whole process was anything but open and transparent. If they can make such a mess of this then questions must be asked about what else they are making a mess of. It's the ISC's duty to ensure that the funding that goes to IABA is used appropriately and it seems to most of the country that there are questions to be asked about that.

I thought that it was perfectly reasonable of Kieran Mulvey to raise questions about the IABA's administrative funding but inappropriate to imply that offering an appropriate contract to Billy Walsh might silence those questions.

I agree that they need to make sure their funding isn't being wasted.

If they have problems with how the organization is being run then that is also a genuine concern.

It is not correct for them to intervene and make public statements on behalf of an individual. I think you might be agreeing with that part but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

What was presented in the press, and in interviews with that Kieran Mulvey was something along the lines of "If this isn't fixed and Billy leaves, we will reconsider the funding we give them". That is completely inappropriate

Donald Trump wrote: »

I agree that they need to make sure their funding isn't being wasted.

If they have problems with how the organization is being run then that is also a genuine concern.

It is not correct for them to intervene and make public statements on behalf of an individual. I think you might be agreeing with that part but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

What was presented in the press, and in interviews with that Kieran Mulvey was something along the lines of "If this isn't fixed and Billy leaves, we will reconsider the funding we give them". That is completely inappropriate

Kieran Mulvey was an active participant in the deal brokered between Walsh, the IABA and the ISC on August 22 though, not just a bystander looking in from the outside. He was perfectly entitled to speak up, especially when he felt the IABA had reneged on that deal and without explanation.