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

Strazdas wrote: »

What I meant is that Carruth is the fulltime, fully paid Chief Executive Officer of the IABA and yet it was the chairman of the board, Joe Christle, effectively an unpaid amateur who was fielding all the questions yesterday.

It makes logical sense to me.

The Board should be responsible for governance and oversight. If the CEO messes up, they need to smack him down. If they should smack him down but don't, then they (not the CEO) need to answer to that. Which is why it would be appropriate and expected for the Board to be at the front line of any questioning like this. It had been stated publicly that the Sports Council said there were issues with governance.

The board can probably fire the CEO but the CEO cannot fire the Board. I'm not sure what your point is by referring to someone as an "unpaid amateur". Is it just an attempt to use emotive language and words as a sneaky slur on the man? Again, I think it comes down to a lack of understanding of how Boards do, and should, work and their roles within an organization

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I honestly don't understand your hypothetical scenarios, or the point of them, I'm sure I'm completely missing something. Everybody understands the IABA makes its own appointments, where is it argued otherwise? The ISC has no power to impose personnel on any sporting organisation, nobody is claiming they do. What took place here was a breakdown in negotiations, the Sports Council was asked to step in as mediator - the IABA has actually written this in statements, more than once. The notion of unwarranted interference is just daft, even the IABA itself has moved on from that position now. Very old news.

I don't feel the need to have any argument or subscribe to conspiracy theories. Like there's still some great unfathomable mystery here. We have bundles of information at this stage and it's quite clear to any reasonable mind that there are two possible explanations: A. The IABA never wanted to keep Billy Walsh and thus played a blinder during the negotiations or B. They desperately wanted to keep their head coach as they claim but through gross ineptitude they let him slip.

That's it: A or B. Take your pick.

Google "False Dichotomy"

Donald Trump wrote: »

It makes logical sense to me.

The Board should be responsible for governance and oversight. If the CEO messes up, they need to smack him down. If they should smack him down but don't, then they (not the CEO) need to answer to that. Which is why it would be appropriate and expected for the Board to be at the front line of any questioning like this. It had been stated publicly that the Sports Council said there were issues with governance.

The board can probably fire the CEO but the CEO cannot fire the Board. I'm not sure what your point is by referring to someone as an "unpaid amateur". Is it just an attempt to use emotive language and words as a sneaky slur on the man? Again, I think it comes down to a lack of understanding of how Boards do, and should, work and their roles within an organization

John Treacy did make the very valid point yesterday that if they felt they couldn't get Billy Walsh's contract past the board then the suggestion must be that the board has little or no confidence in the HPU.

walshb wrote: »

Or little or no confidence in Billy?

Why even enter contract negotiations so?

Strazdas wrote: »

John Treacy did make the very valid point yesterday that if they felt they couldn't get Billy Walsh's contract past the board then the suggestion must be that the board has little or no confidence in the HPU.

Not really.

I'll try to explain it in a basic way. Think about the extremes.

Would the IABA have wanted him to continue in his current role under current conditions for a salary of 1 cent a year? -Extremely likely
Would Billy Walsh have agreed to these conditions - Extremely unlikely

Would the IABA have wanted to give him absolute power over the organisation and a salary of 1m a year? - Extremely unlikely
Would Billy Walsh have agreed to these conditions - Extremely likely


The point is that for each party, there are extremes where they will definitely agree or disagree. So for each party then there is a point, or a range in the middle beyond which they are not willing to accept.

For a deal to be done, this acceptable region has to overlap. If it doesn't then a deal cannot be done.

In itself, none of what happened is evidence that the IABA don't have confidence in the HPU or in Billy Walsh's abilities. And it can not prove they did or did not want to keep him.

Joe_ Public wrote: »

So they haven't been asked, like 10 times already? Only they keep coming up with a different story each time.

"Go through the motions"? Is that the best answer we've got? Go into a process just for the sake of it, keep the charade going for 8 months - EIGHT MONTHS - wasting people's time and money and then having all this negative energy swirling around the place eight months out from the Olympics. I mean I've heard a lot of odd suggestions on this thread, but that, jeez...it's like we haven't even got beyond square one here at all.

But listening to many here and in the media the "truth" in all this appears to be that the IABA wanted him out. So, it makes perfect sense that they'd go through the motions and put up road blocks. They were hardly going to come straight out with it if they wanted him ousted. They weren't going to be that callous.

Do you believe the IABA wanted rid of Billy? If so, doesn't it makes sense that all the talks and negotiations and deals were simply a case of going thorugh the motions until he cracked?

For me, this should make perfect sense for those who see this as the IABA being out to shaft Walsh. It is either that, or they didn't want to shaft him and simply couldn't come to an agreed settlement.

cowzerp wrote: »

or maybe they felt if he got a good pay rise the others would get disillusioned!

That was a point they made. An understandable one too.

The HP unit, as well as the whole IABA/Club structure is such a big team effort. The singling out of one man so very publicly is probabaly where this all started to turn sour.

cowzerp wrote: »

or maybe they felt if he got a good pay rise the others would get disillusioned!

Let's go over this one more time. Billy Walsh is on record since after the 2012 Olympics that all he wanted was to be recognised and paid for the job he was doing - High Performance Director. If they'd given him that, I am certain none of the last 8 months happens, even with the USA job offer, he'd have limped onto Rio and, depending on Irish fortunes, had it out with the IABA afterwards and then either stayed or gone.

The proposed salary increase was intended to bring it into line with what HP directors were being paid across the board in all sports, to end the ludicrous situation where directors in far less successful sports - every sport basically - were being better rewarded than Walsh. If the other coaches were being under-paid - quite likely - well that should be addressed too.

The pond here is starting to reek with the overflow of dead red herrings being flung into it.

Joe_ Public wrote: »

To be honest I'd have had more respect for them if they'd just come out from the start and said they wanted him gone - if that was their position - and then dug in to see out the ensuing storm. At least it'd have been all played out earlier in the year, not so close to the Olympics and not been a distraction while the World Champions were ongoing. The first thing they did, according to Treacy yesterday, was to contact the Sports Council and tell them about the "crazy" offer from the USA so that either tells me that they wanted the ISC to come in and intervene to prevent it OR they were envisaging a long, drawn out process of negotiation, just a silly game of politics the aim of which was to drive everybody to distraction until, as you say, Billy Walsh was basically broken. Kind of cowardly way to do things, but that's politics for you.

Agreement? They did come to agreement on two occasions, after both of which the IABA moved the goalposts and cranked up their demands. It's all there in the documentation if you care to read it.

If Vincent Hogan in the Independent is correct, Carruth and Christle's reaction to Walsh mentioning a "crazy money" offer from the US was astonishing. It was along the lines of "That's grand Billy, we would just have to work out a way to reveal to the press and the public that you're leaving". Everything was screwed from that moment onwards.

Strazdas wrote: »

If Vincent Hogan in the Independent is correct, Carruth and Christle's reaction to Walsh mentioning a "crazy money" offer from the US was astonishing. It was along the lines of "That's grand Billy, we would just have to work out a way to reveal to the press and the public that you're leaving". Everything was screwed from that moment onwards.

Like most people, I'd like to think I'm good at my job. Also, like most people, I think I could be getting paid at least a bit more than I am currently. Or at the very least that I'd like to.

I'd also like to think that my manager would like me to continue in my role.

If another company came in and offered me, say, double my current salary, I don't think that my current employer would match it. (If they did, it would mean I'm an idiot for working there for half of what they were willing to pay me.)
Instead, I'd hope that the best that they would say to me is "oh ok. congratulations. We can't match that but we're happy for you and wish you the best. Lets try to work out an orderly exit so that you will stay with us long enough to hand over your tasks to your successor."

That wouldn't mean that my manager was conspiring all along to get rid of me!

Strazdas wrote: »

Well according to Hogan, Walsh added "I know you would never be in a position to match that offer and I can assure you I have no desire to leave" or words to that effect.

It does seem like Carruth and Christle had no particular desire to keep Walsh. They had eight months to sort out the situation (something that could easily have been hammered out in a fortnight) and failed to do so.

Look it's simple.

Billy Walsh was an employee of the IABA. Had he been satisfied with the conditions under which he was employed, he would still be working there. It was not that his contract ran out. It is my understanding that he resigned.

If he didn't want to leave, and was happy there, he would have not left of his own volition. He would have simply said nothing and continued. The conspiracy theorists would then have gotten their proof when the IABA decided to fire him for whatever conspiracy reason they think. So if your view is that the IABA were out to get rid of Billy at all costs, he basically made it easy on them by giving them plausible deniability.

I do not see the point in his mentioning the other offer other than to attempt to use it as leverage. Again, if someone was to offer me a better package than I have, but I was never going to take it, I would not tell my employer as they might then think I am talking to others and therefore not fully committed to the future of the company.

The simple truth is that Billy Walsh was not happy with the conditions that he currently had in the job. Be that money or autonomy. Maybe he was wrong or maybe he was correct in what he wanted. I don't know. He wanted more and they decided not to give it to him and so he moved on. Which, while unfortunate, was the right thing to do for the sake of all involved. His requirements could have been related to personal gain or could have been for the greater good of boxing with no personal gain to him. Regardless, it seems to have been the refusal of the IABA to accede to these requirements which caused him to resign. They were entitled to make that decision without undue external influence.

I hope that Billy does well in his new position. I am sure that he will. He might find that he has even less influence in his new role. Relatively speaking, very few people care about amateur boxing in the US.

Donald Trump wrote: »

Look it's simple.

Billy Walsh was an employee of the IABA. Had he been satisfied with the conditions under which he was employed, he would still be working there. It was not that his contract ran out. It is my understanding that he resigned.

If he didn't want to leave, and was happy there, he would have not left of his own volition. He would have simply said nothing and continued. The conspiracy theorists would then have gotten their proof when the IABA decided to fire him for whatever conspiracy reason they think. So if your view is that the IABA were out to get rid of Billy at all costs, he basically made it easy on them by giving them plausible deniability.

I do not see the point in his mentioning the other offer other than to attempt to use it as leverage. Again, if someone was to offer me a better package than I have, but I was never going to take it, I would not tell my employer as they might then think I am talking to others and therefore not fully committed to the future of the company.

The simple truth is that Billy Walsh was not happy with the conditions that he currently had in the job. Be that money or autonomy. Maybe he was wrong or maybe he was correct in what he wanted. I don't know. He wanted more and they decided not to give it to him and so he moved on. Which, while unfortunate, was the right thing to do for the sake of all involved. His requirements could have been related to personal gain or could have been for the greater good of boxing with no personal gain to him. Regardless, it seems to have been the refusal of the IABA to accede to these requirements which caused him to resign. They were entitled to make that decision without undue external influence.

I hope that Billy does well in his new position. I am sure that he will. He might find that he has even less influence in his new role. Relatively speaking, very few people care about amateur boxing in the US.

You seem to be suggesting that Walsh was out of order in asking for a pay rise and increased autonomy and you mention them "not giving in to him", as if his demands were of the unreasonable variety.

By all accounts, they had messed him around since London 2012. His requests for more money and increased autonomy didn't come out of the blue, and yet the first time the IABA hear his requests, their attitude seems to have been "Off you go now pal, it was nice knowing you".

Why didn't they simply hammer out a deal with him in February? If we go along with the idea that they were quite justified in dragging things out for eight months, then the inference must be that Walsh's demands were indeed outrageous and unreasonable (not that anyone outside the IABA and their handful of supporters actually seems to believe this).

Donald Trump wrote: »

Nobody said anything was outrageous. At least I did not because I do not know any details. Just because they did not grant him what he wanted does not mean that his requests were outrageous. Go and talk to your boss tomorrow. Tell him you want a 5% increase and if he says no does that prove that your request is outrageous?

Put yourself in the position of an employer. A staff members comes to you and says "hey, I got a big offer". Maybe you'd immediately match that offer without questioning or deciding whether it is actually a good idea for you to do so. Or maybe you'd be worried that it would set a precedent for other staff. Or maybe even that the same staff member who would come back after another 6 months and say "thanks for that last increase. By the way, *cough cough* I got another bigger offer *cough cough*.

Am i saying that Billy Walsh would do this? No. Of course not. But was it impossible that it might happen? Of course not.

As Billy might himself agree, you need discipline and authority in order to get results. Billy might have wanted more authority but the IABA itself also needs to keep its authority over Irish Boxing. It might have been as simple as a rock coming up against a hard place. Billy wanted more than they were willing to give. If they were wrong and made a mistake, then they are entitled to do so. It is their members organization. And members democratically elect them.

In no way could this be compared to a regular employer - employee relationship though. The IABA are not a private company or there to make a profit (in fact they have virtually no income of their own) so the idea of their head coach asking for an increased salary is something very different to an
employee walking into his boss's office and requesting a pay rise.

Besides, the ISC were going to pay Walsh's salary in full which makes the IABA's claims that they were worried over his proposed pay increase extremely puzzling.

I'm not sure I would agree that granting Walsh more powers would have in any way threatened the IABA's authority. Interestingly, Christle and Carruth didn't even attempt this line of defence at any point in the last week. They tried to make out that their concerns were all about the financial aspects of Walsh's contract and this was the main sticking point.

Interesting snippet from yesterday's Dail hearing. John Treacey says the board of the IABA told him in August that any one of twenty different coaches could do the work of Billy Walsh :

http://www.thesun.ie/irishsol/homepage/sport/6714531/Not-Dil-that-hot.html

I don't doubt for a moment that they actually believe that. It would explain a lot of their actions this year and in the last week.

efb wrote: »

I'd say the problem is they believe it... Yes the most salient point is US Boxing offered him the contract, not anyone else in the IABA...

The IABA seriously undermined Billy with their actions and it reflects very poorly on them.

Yes, I totally agree. They do believe it and they don't really get all the fuss that's created about the High Performance Unit, probably think it's overkill, too much money spent on it and on Billy Big Boots coaches. And whether we like it or not, it's a view not just confined to the IABA board as a glance back through this thread would show, plenty of people here wondering what all the fuss was about when the story broke, sure we're just losing one guy, what's the big deal, they'll appoint someone else and we'll all move on etc

It's the kind of attitude that invites the gradual slipping of standards, the fatal compromise of complacency, the thing Billy Walsh always went out of his way to guard against. There are some very good coaches out there but it takes a great coach or manager in whatever discipline - a Billy Walsh, a Brian Cody, a Willie Mullins - to ensure that never happens. They just don't get what they've lost in there and I don't suppose they ever truly will.