Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Billy Walsh quits ** SEE MOD WARNING #643 BEFORE POSTING
Options
Comments
-
Donald Trump wrote: »Who? Kieran Mulvey or the poster?
Mulvey did effectively threaten to withdraw funding if the situation was not resolved. And by resolved he means having Billy Walsh stay.
But by making that statement so publicly, he must have effectively ended any hopes that it could have been resolved.
My own preference would have been that they had sorted this out long ago internally. Long before it got to this stage. And that Billy Walsh was still there and working for the good of Irish boxing.
The fact that he isn't there now just 10 months before Rio is surely a catastrophic failure of governance by the IABA. Would you agree?0 -
The fact that he isn't there now just 10 months before Rio is surely a catastrophic failure of governance by the IABA. Would you agree?
Not based on the information that I know, which is only the information in the public domain. It could have been incompetency or complacency, it could have been based on personal agendas (on either or both side), or it could have been that they took a conscious decision to take that stance for definite reasons, whether legitimate or not. It could have been a mix of none or all of the above. It could have started with something small and festered for years and been in a situation where it was either Billy Walsh or his "enemies" having to leave and his "enemies" had more clout. I don't know. These things happen. That doesn't make it any better. I doubt that it's as simplistic as "Billy Walsh good, everyone else bad". Maybe it is. I don't know.
What is in the public domain is that he was offered a contract which he could and would not accept, and his belief is that they offered it to him knowing that he could not accept it. I do not know why they did that but that in itself does not point to a problem with governance. They might have been wrong, but it is not bad corporate governance to be wrong. As long as they are wrong within their own rules!
Yes, we are 10 months away from Rio. But we are also maybe 24 months away from Hamburg and 5 years away from Tokyo. There's always going to be a major competition coming up within the next two years!
The Olympics are what the general public sees but the World Championships are the big one (at least in my unworthy opinion)
Notwithstanding that, I do still think that there needs to be a postmortem done to try to fix any issues and then just move on. If there are people who have positions of power who are not suited to those positions then they need to be replaced with better people (Am referring to the IABA). But I don't know if there are, and if there are, who they are.0 -
Bottom line: if they'd given him his proper title some time after London and the raise to go with it none of this would ever have arisen. Billy would still have been unhappy but would have put up with it to Rio anyway. Then his contract would have been up, they'd probably try not to renew it and ride out the public storm (assuming another successful Games).0
-
Donald Trump wrote: »Not based on the information that I know, which is only the information in the public domain. It could have been incompetency or complacency, it could have been based on personal agendas (on either or both side), or it could have been that they took a conscious decision to take that stance for definite reasons, whether legitimate or not. It could have been a mix of none or all of the above. It could have started with something small and festered for years and been in a situation where it was either Billy Walsh or his "enemies" having to leave and his "enemies" had more clout. I don't know. These things happen. That doesn't make it any better. I doubt that it's as simplistic as "Billy Walsh good, everyone else bad". Maybe it is. I don't know.
What is in the public domain is that he was offered a contract which he could and would not accept, and his belief is that they offered it to him knowing that he could not accept it. I do not know why they did that but that in itself does not point to a problem with governance. They might have been wrong, but it is not bad corporate governance to be wrong. As long as they are wrong within their own rules!
Yes, we are 10 months away from Rio. But we are also maybe 24 months away from Hamburg and 5 years away from Tokyo. There's always going to be a major competition coming up within the next two years!
The Olympics are what the general public sees but the World Championships are the big one (at least in my unworthy opinion)
Notwithstanding that, I do still think that there needs to be a postmortem done to try to fix any issues and then just move on. If there are people who have positions of power who are not suited to those positions then they need to be replaced with better people (Am referring to the IABA). But I don't know if there are, and if there are, who they are.
Some valid points there. It does seem crazy though that a hugely successful coach has to leave because of contractual issues and matters of powers and autonomy and pay structure. These are normally things that are hammered out behind the scenes and we never get to hear about. I'm sure we'd all be quite startled to hear that Joe Schmidt was fighting with the IRFU or that Martin O'Neill was at war with the FAI about their pay or terms of their contract and threatening to walk away from the job unless it was sorted out. Our first reaction would be "What the hell is going on there?".
This should have been sorted out and put to bed ages ago : the fact that it was never resolved and ended very badly might suggest that those involved never wanted it resolved and perhaps even that they got their desired outcome.0 -
Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »It's not a claim it's my direct experience of being involved at senior level in a different sporting NGB, most people are under the impression the ISC is uniform in their funding they really are far from it. But seeing as how you asked, you can have a look at the funding they provide each sport including any special projects every year here
For example IABA get the following
Compare that for example to Camogie that gets a fraction of that funding at €378,519 for 2015. It is easy to see how the ISC may decide to reallocate a portion of funding.
Where's the evidence its based on their "whims'?0 -
Advertisement
-
Donald Trump wrote: »Not based on the information that I know, which is only the information in the public domain. It could have been incompetency or complacency, it could have been based on personal agendas (on either or both side), or it could have been that they took a conscious decision to take that stance for definite reasons, whether legitimate or not. It could have been a mix of none or all of the above. It could have started with something small and festered for years and been in a situation where it was either Billy Walsh or his "enemies" having to leave and his "enemies" had more clout. I don't know. These things happen. That doesn't make it any better. I doubt that it's as simplistic as "Billy Walsh good, everyone else bad". Maybe it is. I don't know.
What is in the public domain is that he was offered a contract which he could and would not accept, and his belief is that they offered it to him knowing that he could not accept it. I do not know why they did that but that in itself does not point to a problem with governance. They might have been wrong, but it is not bad corporate governance to be wrong. As long as they are wrong within their own rules!
Yes, we are 10 months away from Rio. But we are also maybe 24 months away from Hamburg and 5 years away from Tokyo. There's always going to be a major competition coming up within the next two years!
The Olympics are what the general public sees but the World Championships are the big one (at least in my unworthy opinion)
Notwithstanding that, I do still think that there needs to be a postmortem done to try to fix any issues and then just move on. If there are people who have positions of power who are not suited to those positions then they need to be replaced with better people (Am referring to the IABA). But I don't know if there are, and if there are, who they are.
The Olympics are the Gold Standard in Amateur Boxing0 -
-
barney4001 wrote: »
That just brings you to the main news page, do you mean this article?
http://m.rte.ie/sport/boxing/2015/1024/737234-billy-walsh-iaba/0 -
The most pertinent point in all this is that Billy is IABA. Has been for so many years. He's part of the furniture. It is like his family. Both Billy and IABA lose here.0
-
-
Advertisement
-
The most pertinent point in all this is that Billy is IABA. Has been for so many years. He's part of the furniture. It is like his family. Both Billy and IABA lose here.
Totally agree but I also believe that only one side truly knows how much he's lost (hint - it's not the one who is presently away on business).0 -
-
The most pertinent point in all this is that Billy is IABA. Has been for so many years. He's part of the furniture. It is like his family. Both Billy and IABA lose here.
It should never have come to this. Routine stuff like pay and contractual arrangements should have been sorted out behind the scenes without us ever hearing about it. It's very telling that outside bodies like the ISC and Minister for Sport got involved over a prolonged period and even they couldn't sort out the mess. The IABA can dress it up whatever way they like and get involved in the blame game, but losing a world class coach was a catastrophic failure on their part.0 -
I heard on RTE 1 radio earlier today that Billy Walsh felt that he was being used as a pawn in a power struggle between the IABA and the ISC.
Can't remember what show, or who it was, for definite, but I think they were talking to Vincent Hogan at the time. Maybe someone else here heard it too.
I do think that is a very plausible scenario (Not that it absolves either party if there were other mistakes made).
ISC should hit the road and keep their noses out in my opinion. Others can of course feel otherwise.
(Am open to correction if I misheard or got names wrong)0 -
Found it here
www . rte . ie / radio1 / this-week /
It was Vincent Hogan
I had to put spaces in the above as it said I can't post links0 -
That just brings you to the main news page, do you mean this article?
http://m.rte.ie/sport/boxing/2015/1024/737234-billy-walsh-iaba/
yes thats it thanks0 -
Donald Trump wrote: »I heard on RTE 1 radio earlier today that Billy Walsh felt that he was being used as a pawn in a power struggle between the IABA and the ISC.
Can't remember what show, or who it was, for definite, but I think they were talking to Vincent Hogan at the time. Maybe someone else here heard it too.
I do think that is a very plausible scenario (Not that it absolves either party if there were other mistakes made).
ISC should hit the road and keep their noses out in my opinion. Others can of course feel otherwise.
(Am open to correction if I misheard or got names wrong)
I don't know if Billy Walsh thinks that, regardless of what any journalist says, it's not something he ever hinted at in the many interviews and statements he's given at this point. What he has clearly said is that he sought to open negotiations with the IABA eight months ago but was of the opinion they were satisfied to see him go. The ISC only came along when discussions between Billy and the IABA had broken down. WIthout ISC intervention, we never even reach the point where apparent agreements can be made. I seriously doubt it would be Billy's view that he was some kind of "pawn" in a chess game, no suggestion of it ever emanated from his mouth anyway.0 -
Joe_ Public wrote: »I don't know if Billy Walsh thinks that, regardless of what any journalist says, it's not something he ever hinted at in the many interviews and statements he's given at this point. What he has clearly said is that he sought to open negotiations with the IABA eight months ago but was of the opinion they were satisfied to see him go. The ISC only came along when discussions between Billy and the IABA had broken down. WIthout ISC intervention, we never even reach the point where apparent agreements can be made. I seriously doubt it would be Billy's view that he was some kind of "pawn" in a chess game, no suggestion of it ever emanated from his mouth anyway.
The comment was made by Vincent Hogan. He said he believed that Billy Walsh felt that he was a pawn. He did not say that Billy Walsh said it. But most of the things he wrote were his opinion and not direct quotes so we can't select the ones we pick and choose to suit our own agenda.
The ISC should not have "only came along" at any stage!
If the IABA had indeed decided they were satisfied to see him go then the ISC should not have interfered in them letting him go.
If the ISC then wanted to remove some of their funding next year because they disagreed with the treatment of a specific individual, that was their prerogative of course. But they do have a responsibility to appropriately use their money. It is taxpayer money. It is not there to allow Kieran Mulvey, or anyone else within the ISC, to force a national governing body to do things against the wishes of their democratically elected leaders. I would have no problem with them removing funding were the standards of the boxing program to diminish. But not due to their choice of coach.
The IABA board is elected. Kieran Mulvey is not.
There are a lot of things going on, and a lot of things that went on, that neither you nor I have any knowledge about.0 -
Donald Trump wrote: »The comment was made by Vincent Hogan. He said he believed that Billy Walsh felt that he was a pawn. He did not say that Billy Walsh said it. But most of the things he wrote were his opinion and not direct quotes so we can't select the ones we pick and choose to suit our own agenda.
The ISC should not have "only came along" at any stage!
If the IABA had indeed decided they were satisfied to see him go then the ISC should not have interfered in them letting him go.
If the ISC then wanted to remove some of their funding next year because they disagreed with the treatment of a specific individual, that was their prerogative of course. But they do have a responsibility to appropriately use their money. It is taxpayer money. It is not there to allow Kieran Mulvey, or anyone else within the ISC, to force a national governing body to do things against the wishes of their democratically elected leaders. I would have no problem with them removing funding were the standards of the boxing program to diminish. But not due to their choice of coach.
The IABA board is elected. Kieran Mulvey is not.
There are a lot of things going on, and a lot of things that went on, that neither you nor I have any knowledge about.
I don't really care what journalist said it, I don't agree with it and I never heard Billy Walsh intimate his displeasure or opposition to the ISC's role in the affair. And the Independent piece wasn't an opinion piece, it was a focus piece detailing the narrative of the process from the start to finish. It was a reporter, with the benefit of documents presumably supplied by Billy Walsh's legal team, threading together the narrative of the story from beginning to bitter end. What he thought about it isn't of huge consequence.
You write as if you know the circumstances of the ISC's intervention, as if they just came barging in where they weren't wanted. How do you know this? In fact, there was no way of them knowing what was going on until contacted by one of the parties, either Walsh or the IABA. The only allusion to their intervention in any of the statements is by the IABA who say they contacted the ISC after one of their meetings with Billy.
Of course there's a lot of stuff going on in the background. I'll wager my life that the relationship between the ISC and Billy Walsh was a very strong one, as it should be, and people there, along with Gary Keegan, would have been an important source of advice and confidence for him in his dealings over the years with the IABA. Just a hunch on my part.0 -
Donald Trump wrote: »The comment was made by Vincent Hogan. He said he believed that Billy Walsh felt that he was a pawn. He did not say that Billy Walsh said it. But most of the things he wrote were his opinion and not direct quotes so we can't select the ones we pick and choose to suit our own agenda.
The ISC should not have "only came along" at any stage!
If the IABA had indeed decided they were satisfied to see him go then the ISC should not have interfered in them letting him go.
If the ISC then wanted to remove some of their funding next year because they disagreed with the treatment of a specific individual, that was their prerogative of course. But they do have a responsibility to appropriately use their money. It is taxpayer money. It is not there to allow Kieran Mulvey, or anyone else within the ISC, to force a national governing body to do things against the wishes of their democratically elected leaders. I would have no problem with them removing funding were the standards of the boxing program to diminish. But not due to their choice of coach.
The IABA board is elected. Kieran Mulvey is not.
There are a lot of things going on, and a lot of things that went on, that neither you nor I have any knowledge about.
The IABA haven't been forced to do anything though. They wanted Walsh out and got him out.0 -
Advertisement
-
The IABA haven't been forced to do anything though. They wanted Walsh out and got him out.
Exactly. There were no guns held to anybody's heads to give Billy everything he wanted. Billy says he wanted to stay, the IABA claim they didn't want to lose him so what else would be done when negotiations fell through only to introduce a mediator? That inevitably means the ISC. There's nothing invidious at all about the role they played.0 -
Joe_ Public wrote: »I don't really care what journalist said it, I don't agree with it and I never heard Billy Walsh intimate his displeasure or opposition to the ISC's role in the affair. And the Independent piece wasn't an opinion piece, it was a focus piece detailing the narrative of the process from the start to finish. It was a reporter, with the benefit of documents presumably supplied by Billy Walsh's legal team, threading together the narrative of the story from beginning to bitter end. What he thought about it isn't of huge consequence.
You write as if you know the circumstances of the ISC's intervention, as if they just came barging in where they weren't wanted. How do you know this? In fact, there was no way of them knowing what was going on until contacted by one of the parties, either Walsh or the IABA. The only allusion to their intervention in any of the statements is by the IABA who say they contacted the ISC after one of their meetings with Billy.
Of course there's a lot of stuff going on in the background. I'll wager my life that the relationship between the ISC and Billy Walsh was a very strong one, as it should be, and people there, along with Gary Keegan, would have been an important source of advice and confidence for him in his dealings over the years with the IABA. Just a hunch on my part.
No, I do not know the circumstances. I only know what is in the public domain and my main issue is with the direct and very public interference by the ISC. That can't have helped. I did not say they came barging in or were unwanted but I would take a good guess that they won't be exactly welcome if they try to meddle in other events in the future.
Kieran Mulvey should not have made those public statements. That is my opinion and I (obviously) think it is a rational and reasonable opinion. They were not helpful and I would say that common sense would tell you that they were in fact counter-productive. Maybe he knew it was a lost cause at that stage and just wanted to shift blame or maybe it was due to personal feelings or grudges against one of the parties involved. I don't know.
Billy Walsh was doing a very good job. But he was an important part of a wider team. Were we going to see a similar reaction from the ISC if the IABA decided not to pick their preferred physio or sports psychologist to look after the team? The same logic applies - "Listen here IABA, Dr. X was with the team when the team was successful, and we all know that he's good, therefore you must do a deal with him to keep him or else".
If changes need to be made in the IABA then that needs to be done through the members. They can change the guys at the top. But they cannot change ISC staff. If the members want to keep the same people there, even if it is a stupid decision, then let them make that decision. Maybe it's not a stupid decision. Maybe they just know more than you and I or Kieran Mulvey!0 -
The IABA haven't been forced to do anything though. They wanted Walsh out and got him out.
It was said in public that if it was not sorted, then the ISC would have to "carefully look at" future funding.
They weren't forced to do anything, but it looks like strong pressure was put on them publicly in an attempt to do so. That was only ever going to backfire!0 -
Joe_ Public wrote: »Exactly. There were no guns held to anybody's heads to give Billy everything he wanted. Billy says he wanted to stay, the IABA claim they didn't want to lose him so what else would be done when negotiations fell through only to introduce a mediator? That inevitably means the ISC. There's nothing invidious at all about the role they played.
Yes, by all means have a mediator. But a mediator should be a mediator and not take sides. If they publicly take sides then they are not mediating.
I don't think there is any doubt that the ISC took a particular "side" in this instance.0 -
Donald Trump wrote: »It was said in public that if it was not sorted, then the ISC would have to "carefully look at" future funding.
They weren't forced to do anything, but it looks like strong pressure was put on them publicly in an attempt to do so. That was only ever going to backfire!
Wasn't Mulvey demanding a statement and an explanation from the IABA at that point though? He wasn't asking them to reinstate Billy Walsh : the 24 hour ultimatum referred to an explanation from the IABA about what had gone on.0 -
Donald Trump wrote: »No, I do not know the circumstances. I only know what is in the public domain and my main issue is with the direct and very public interference by the ISC. That can't have helped. I did not say they came barging in or were unwanted but I would take a good guess that they won't be exactly welcome if they try to meddle in other events in the future.
Kieran Mulvey should not have made those public statements. That is my opinion and I (obviously) think it is a rational and reasonable opinion. They were not helpful and I would say that common sense would tell you that they were in fact counter-productive. Maybe he knew it was a lost cause at that stage and just wanted to shift blame or maybe it was due to personal feelings or grudges against one of the parties involved. I don't know.
Billy Walsh was doing a very good job. But he was an important part of a wider team. Were we going to see a similar reaction from the ISC if the IABA decided not to pick their preferred physio or sports psychologist to look after the team? The same logic applies - "Listen here IABA, Dr. X was with the team when the team was successful, and we all know that he's good, therefore you must do a deal with him to keep him or else".
If changes need to be made in the IABA then that needs to be done through the members. They can change the guys at the top. But they cannot change ISC staff. If the members want to keep the same people there, even if it is a stupid decision, then let them make that decision. Maybe it's not a stupid decision. Maybe they just know more than you and I or Kieran Mulvey!
The ISC is set up to have an interest in Irish sport at two levels, participation and elite, it's is job to "meddle" if that's how you want to put it. And if that's not acceptable to the NGBs, then they need either to discontinue funding or canvas the minister to change the statutes. The instances of the ISC getting involved in so public a manner with the workings of sporting federations is very rare, as has been pointed out on this thread, only three I can think of off hand - athletics, swimming and boxing. It's not something it does with any evident relish that I can detect. I'm sure everybody in Blanchardstown would just prefer a nice quiet life with everybody getting along, but that's not always the case.
Mulvey? I dont know really, probably got it wrong politically but I'm not getting het up on that, the poor delicate sensibilities of the IABA officials aside. I guess he's been around the block a few times and when he says the attitude of the IABA was utterly shocking to him, then i guess I find that an interesting statement. But it's not the key to this whole process for me.
And I agree with one 100 per cent on one point, the IABA can, within reason, choose who they like as their own staff, including losing the services of the most successful international coach in Irish sporting history.0 -
Donald Trump wrote: »Yes, by all means have a mediator. But a mediator should be a mediator and not take sides. If they publicly take sides then they are not mediating.
I don't think there is any doubt that the ISC took a particular "side" in this instance.
But this wasn't a popularity contest. As I stated, Billy says he wanted to stay, the IABA claim they didn't want to lose him. So the ISC's role was to facilitate an agreement acceptable to both parties which it believed it did. So it was entitled to feel disappointed when the agreement broke down and, as a party to the negotiations, give its view that it was due to IABA intransigence that it did so. Can't find fault with their part in that much at all to be honest.0 -
Joe_ Public wrote: »But this wasn't a popularity contest. As I stated, Billy says he wanted to stay, the IABA claim they didn't want to lose him. So the ISC's role was to facilitate an agreement acceptable to both parties which it believed it did. So it was entitled to feel disappointed when the agreement broke down and, as a party to the negotiations, give its view that it was due to IABA intransigence that it did so. Can't find fault with their part in that much at all to be honest.
The ISC also said they were completely baffled as to 'how' or 'why' the agreement broke down. They claim that all sides shook hands on a deal on August 22nd and then were flabbergasted to hear two days later that the IABA were backing out of the deal they had already agreed to.0 -
The ISC also said they were completely baffled as to 'how' or 'why' the agreement broke down. They claim that all sides shook hands on a deal on August 22nd and then were flabbergasted to hear two days later that the IABA were backing out of the deal they had already agreed to.
Yes. That's the deal Joe Christle says he didn't put before the board because he didn't think they'd buy it. I guess Joe doesn't have much faith in his own powers of persuasion. Isn't it amazing that the two most powerful figures in an organisation would have agreed to a deal but then didn't believe they could convince the others on the board? I dont know about anybody else, but I find that extraordinary.
So instead they took the agreement they had reached, added a load of conditions to it and blew the entire thing out of the water.0 -
Advertisement
-
Joe_ Public wrote: »Yes. That's the deal Joe Christle says he didn't put before the board because he didn't think they'd buy it. I guess Joe doesn't have much faith in his own powers of persuasion. Isn't it amazing that the two most powerful figures in an organisation would have agreed to a deal but then didn't believe they could convince the others on the board? I dont know about anybody else, but I find that extraordinary.
So instead they took the agreement they had reached, added a load of conditions to it and blew the entire thing out of the water.
overegoed small time officials, as brendan behan once said if you have a thing running great, get the committee involved to mess it up, or words to that effect0
Advertisement