A Worrying Trend

I like many on this forum have become (what’s the word im looking for its not confused or bemused) but basically shocked by the way the FAI, everybody’s pal Don (I really haven’t got a clue what the F**k is going on) Givens and the show circus that has become the management and politics behind the Republic of Ireland football team. I like everyone on this forum am a football fan and believe from reading the posts that pretty much we would be able to pick at least the spine of the national team and I would know who I would like as manager. That aside please tell me what’s going on upstairs (behind the scenes) there seems to be alot of incestual glad handing going on, you scratch my back I will scratch your back type of bo*****. The thing is they have taken an age for this special group (and they are special) to have drawn up a list of candidates for the post (a list that im sure is on colored paper written in crayon) and if any respectable turf accountant is to believed everyone from the Dali lama to Gerry Ryan has been considered. How much are we paying these guys for the privilege? What time frame were they given? What was the exact remit? We never learn that because the mafia like way in which the FAI is run its around secrecy and spin. Get football people into the FAI, get football people in to mange our teams from grass roots to full international teams and get football people to speak on footballing matters not a bunch of overpaid politicians who are only interested in lining there own pockets and when the s*** hits the fan finding every and any scapegoat they can to blame it on. Its like a class of 6 year olds blaming each other when the teacher finds out they haven’t done there homework. I am sick to the back teeth of the nonsense that goes on and what we as paying fans are subjected by this shower. Guess what will happen if they get it wrong this time the special group will be blamed nobody else and the fat cats will just keep getting fatter.

I’m sorry for the rant but the reality in all this is it is the “roll up roll up and welcome to the FAI show” today you will be amazed at how little work we do but manage to keep our jobs, we will baffle you with bull**** and finally we will churn out the same crap time and time again. We are distracted from the football and the players seem distracted and frankly disinterested, when will these idiots realize? they are there because of the players and they are there because of us the fans. The sooner they realize this and get back to what’s important which is restoring he pride back into Irish football and looking forward to the next campaign the better for the Irish football team and all its loyal fans.

FAI rant over!

It took 12 weeks to appoint kerr, and the same length to appoint stan. we're getting into 14 weeks now.

The difference this time is the fai had to spend weeks getting together a selection panel.

I cant see how you can be annoyed at the time spend getting a good manager, would you prefer if they had of taken the list of names on paddy power, the first day stan was sacked, put them in a hat, and picked a lucky candidate?

You can judge the process when you see who they have selected at the end. The time it takes is irrelevant if you consider it is to hopefully benefit irish football.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eekers

I cant see how you can be annoyed at the time spend getting a good manager,

---

The phrase should be IF the time is spent getting a good manager.

If the time is spent getting us Terry Venables, then not only will almost everyone here have their initial suspicions of FAI bollockology confirmed, but the FAI will be considered the little association that cried "interview process" , and will find it damn hard to maintain any respect, kudos or friendships in International football as well as from Other Associations, the Press, and any future potential appointees.

I still believe the interview process was the wrong tact. An association should be brave enough to identify it's target, be it Houllier, Hodgson, or whoever, approach him and say " We know what you can do. Our experts reckon you're just the man for us. We can offer you €x million, but we're open to discussion, cos we're a middling international side with some potential, and on your history, we think you're just the man to make us viable. What's it gonna take?"

But they didnt have the balls to go and do that, hence the 'fall guy' 3 man Fás panel was put in place, making us look for all the world like a football equivalent of the homely girl, standing against the dancehall wall, bucktoothed with glasses, waiting shyly to be asked to dance by anyone with low enough standards to be seen getting up close and personal with an ugly girl.

Cobbled together from a gobshyte FAI employee with a terrible managerial record & an inexplicable God complex, an English pensioner and a telly pundit thrown in as an afterthought, the committee's actions read like some bizarre 'Spitting Image' sketch :

3 slightly clueless men in wingback chairs, varifocals on noses, take 14 weeks to read through CVs. A very small pile of CVs says "YES", a much bigger pile says "NO" and the biggest pile of all says " COMPLETELY LOST INTEREST OR HAVE GOT OTHER JOB SINCE PROCESS STARTED"

In true comedy classic style, the punchline will no doubt be that the top 5 100% best men for the job will all have been interviewed in the first 5 weeks, and will be now comfortable in the "NOT INTERESTED / GOT OTHER JOB" pile, and since none of the interview committee can face going through all that embarrassing interview crap again, they vote to give the gig to the only man in the running who remained otherwise completely unemployable throughout the footballing world all during the process.

Terry O'Venables, Come on down!

A facetious scenario, but plausable nonetheless. Waiting 14 weeks for an appointment would be fine were we to be sure that the FAI were capable and competent, and generally knew what they were doing.

Sadly, we know that quite the opposite is true. hence the concern.

Well said Bondvillain. I agree with all the post, particularly this part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bondvillain

An association should be brave enough to identify it's target, be it Houllier, Hodgson, or whoever, approach him and say " We know what you can do. Our experts reckon you're just the man for us. We can offer you €x million, but we're open to discussion, cos we're a middling international side with some potential, and on your history, we think you're just the man to make us viable. What's it gonna take?"

---

The FAI have clearly, and publicly, taken a "Leave no stone unturned" attitude concerning the appointment of a new manager.

Now, this sounds fine at first, it sounds like a careful approach rather than a hasty decision.

But this is not like a normal hiring process because all these candidates are well-known, their strengths and weakness are well known. And the odds of a potential manager being lost grow as the time taken to settle on a candidate grows.

At some point the committee have to bite the bullet. The committee should have clear criteria set out, benchmarks the candidate must meet. And, if and when a candidate meets those criteria, he should be offered the job. These are not strangers they're interviewing, they are well known people. The interviewers should already know what the interviewees will answer to almost every question. The interview should be a search for confirmation of what the committee already thinks.

The FAI idea of interviewing everybody out there who's interested in the job is flawed in that there will always be somebody out there who's interested in the job. You can't wait forever. You have to make a move. And if you can't do that, you shouldn't be hiring the manager.

"Leaving no stone unturned" doesn't apply in this case. There are some stones which should have been left unturned. And the Venables stone, which the FAI seem to be examining quite closely, is actually a lump of fossilised turd.

The worrying trend as I have highlighted is that I have a feeling, belief or using common sense pure gut instinct that we will be welcoming old tel (delboy) Venables to the post following the detailed (no stone unturned search) and fully agree as with the last two posters that this is an elaborate smoke screen which is as transparent as cling film to placate the Irish football fan and to show the footballing world that the FAI have a clue what they are doing. Its a shambles I was told at the start that Givens would do everything in his power to manage the team against Brazil and in my naivety I laughed (im not laughing any more) its a joke pure and simple and its costing us not only financially. The players are now criticizing the process and its calling into question the integrity (if they ever had any) of the FAI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

At some point the committee have to bite the bullet. The committee should have clear criteria set out, benchmarks the candidate must meet. And, if and when a candidate meets those criteria, he should be offered the job.

---

well i believe houllier has been offered the job, and they're waiting on him to get back to them.

if the process had of been left to delaney again venables would of had the job weeks ago. i know which i prefer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eekers

well i believe houllier has been offered the job, and they're waiting on him to get back to them.

if the process had of been left to delaney again venables would of had the job weeks ago. i know which i prefer

---

Only in Ireland can a "headhunting" team be waiting for someone to "get back to them".

You know in the old Looney tunes cartoons where none of the Falling anvils or pianos or boulders ever hit Bugs Bunny, but it was because of dumb luck rather than any kind of long term structured plan?

That's how people will look at the fai if anyone other than Venables is appointed to this job. Dumb luck.

If Venables IS appointed, then they'll be exposed for the completely useless buch of lying sneaks that they are.

Damned if they do, damned if they dont, and it's their own fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eekers

well i believe houllier has been offered the job

---

Since we're on the subject of rumours, I was told via text by a media aquaintance last week (and posted somewhere here, but Im damned if I can find it) That Houllier was approached and refused over some Technical coaching aspects / appointments, leading to the cancellation of last Tuesdays announcement so they could frantically work on Plan B.

I believe that Plan B in this case would be Venables, as Houghtons preferred candidate, (alleged to be Roy H, interviewed for the job last year, I believe....) is already employed.

How good is your wait and see parable if THAT one turned out to be more accurate than any of the other thousand rumours posted here in the last 3 months?

My point remains still : A considered approach in private to the correct designated candidate for Ireland would have been a better option than this "Interview" farce, which has more dodgy leaks than a colander, and less credibility than Hollyoaks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bondvillain

My point remains still : A considered approach in private to the correct designated candidate for Ireland would have been a better option than this "Interview" farce, which has more dodgy leaks than a colander, and less credibility than Hollyoaks.

---

the problem here isnt the process. its the media waiting for the process to end having to fill newspaper pages up every day, so they print shiite.

and whats wrong with letting houllier take a bit of time to make a decision.

- "alright gerard we want you for the ireland job?"
- "ah zee ireland job, i'll need a week or so to decide, i have to find out if my wife is dying or not"
- "ah jaysus. gerard, the people of ireland cant wait... anyone got venables number handy?"

The concept of a telephone interview or conference call seems to have been lost on these guys. Anything I've heard from them answering questions about the delay has centered on how hard it is to tie people down for an interview. Maybe they don't have telephones in the FAI, only a complicated system of smoke and mirrors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eekers

the problem here isnt the process. its the media waiting for the process to end having to fill newspaper pages up every day, so they print shiite.

and whats wrong with letting houllier take a bit of time to make a decision.

- "alright gerard we want you for the ireland job?"
- "ah zee ireland job, i'll need a week or so to decide, i have to find out if my wife is dying or not"
- "ah jaysus. gerard, the people of ireland cant wait... anyone got venables number handy?"

---

The media will fill their pages with truths, half truths and utter crap whether there's a manager appointed or not. The media are to blame for many many things, but these clownish interview shenanigans are purely the FAI's folly.

Regarding the appointment rumours, I stated in earlier posts that firstly, the reasoning behind Houllier's alleged refusal was down to technical staff appointments, and secondly, that quite clearly, the problem with the long drawn out interview process is the fact that genuine eligible candidates have been employed elsewhere because this imbecillic farce has taken so long.

It would appear that the main argument in favour of a 14 week + interview process performed by a failed U21 manager, a pensioner from Wolverhampton and a television pundit, seems (here at least) to be along the lines of : we will get a world class manager because we've waited 14 weeks.

Some people are obviously either hoping that the FAI recieve a Biblical "Matt Talbot" style reward for suffering so long, or are giving them FAR too much credit for an element of forward thinking ability that even the dogs on the streets know they simply do not possess:

Just because the FAI may accidently stumble upon a qualified manager who happens to be available come the interview closing date certainly doesn't mean that he's the one who they intended to hire all along.
No man who hasn't been specifically headhunted is going to wait three months to get a "yea" or "nay" for what for many involved is a tuppence ha'penny appointment with no guarantee that the FAI are intending to play it straight at all.

I'd go so far as to bet every penny I have that Roy Hodgson probably gave the one of the best interviews that the 3 fall guys have ever witnessed. I'd reckon his record, ability and plans for the future impressed them greatly. His current fortunes with Fulham notwithstanding, I feel he would have impressed.

Were they in a position to offer him the job? Were they buggery.

They had to still to call a number of has-been wasters into the room, because said has-been wasters got the scent of blood and cash, and contacted the FAI for an interview.
Did the FAI say to them "Sorry, we know who our man is, and we're going to get him by hook or by crook?
Did they buggery. They wimped out & continued, and any moron who ever picked up a grassy traffic cone in anger was granted an audience with the 3 stooges.

Oh and then they had to "informally" contact the likes of David O Leary to see if he wanted one. ( He didn't of course, because, foolish as he may seem, he knows a set up when he sees one, and wanted no part of an interview for a gig that both he and we knew he was never going to get...)

The reason they couldnt make an offer to any man they felt was an outstanding candidate was because no matter who was interviewed, this moronic procedure still seemingly had weeks and weeks of futility left to run.

So the question is, Was Houllier an exasperated shot in the dark, a relevation brought on by the madness of it all?? Or was he marked for the gig all along but left until last, because they knew a man of his presence wouldn't take any of their standard "Thanks for coming. We'll let you know in about 3 months" shyte?

If the former, what the hell have these 3 fools been doing for 14 weeks?

If the latter, then why didn't they just send a determined delegation of both football men and businessmen to France back in November to hack out a deal there and then?

That's not Houllier specific : The same goes for any appointment.
These candidates are not Fás trainees. They are Qualified management veterans, some of whom have graced the highest stages; Their Records are there for all to see.
The procedure is simple 1)Study form. 2) Identify your man. 3) Get your man.

No interviews necessary, and you save yourself national embarrassment.
The FAI didnt have the balls to go out and approach their man for fear of being rebuffed, and we have to suffer this thundering disgrace of a process because of it. I appreciate that we dont need a manager right this second, but what we need even less is the FAI pretending to be competent & proactive when they are quite the opposite.




(Oh, and while attempts at humour are generally to be commended; sarcasm is one thing, Using Houllier's ill wife as a punchline is quite another. )

There are a number of threads in this area at the moment, Givens OUT!!!!, Clinton Morrison's ommision?, Stephen Ireland unhappy? and this one and they're all saying the same thing. The FAI are a model of ineptness.
The mess that surrounds Don Givens at the moment is indicative of how the FAI operate.
John Delaney must not think the fans deserve any respect because he keeps insulting us and dismissing public opinion. First he tells us we are going to get A WORLD CLASS MANAGER and end up with Staunton, then he hires Don Givens, Don Howe & Ray Houghton to chose the new manager almost a hundred days ago and we're no closer now.
His treatment of the media is like something from a Three Stooges movie. When they sacked Staunton they held the meeting in a different hotel than that which they media were told. Last week the so called update meeting was cordened off with the media kept a half mile away.
It's farcical. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Why don't they listen to public opinion? The fans have no other agenda than to see our national team succeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bondvillain

The procedure is simple 1)Study form. 2) Identify your man. 3) Get your man.

No interviews necessary, and you save yourself national embarrassment.

---

Whilst I can see there is heartfelt frustration at the present process, nonetheless I can see two problems with your suggested alternative (above).

First, there is absolutely no guarantee that "your man" will accept. After all, two years ago the FA identified Scolari as their man, thought they had him by virtue of a huge salary, then he screwed them over. And to avoid it happening again this time, they had to offer the 60 year old Capello a salary which could be worth over £20 million stg (plus benefits such as house, car etc), should he have a bit of success during the next four years.

Second, if turned down by the preferred candidate, the FAI will then be in a difficult situation. Let us assume their first choice is/was Houllier. It's going to be difficult to attract someone of nearly the same stature who's not going to be offended by being thought of as "sloppy seconds".

At best, anyone half-decent* who stays in the race (Venables?) will have the FAI over a barrel. At worst, no-one half-decent will want it, in which case you're left with a second-rater as your second choice (Steve McClaren anyone?)

I daresay the FAI could have handled this much better than they have - you are infinitely better placed than me to judge. However, it might be instructive to look at the parallel with NI. There, a section of the fans were somewhat underwhelmed with the appointment of Worthington, but I personally feel they are being unrealistic, since never mind our recent relative "success", it is still one of the least important jobs in European international football and he's as good as we were ever likely to get (imo).

Granted, the ROI job is a "bigger" one in status, salary and potential achievement; nonetheless, when even mediocre English/Scottish clubs can attract managers who had been successful with Wales (Hughes), Scotland (Smith, McLeish) and NI (Sanchez), if the FAI can't appoint someone who has real standing in the game, this may be a simple reflection of the fact that increased salary notwithstanding, the job isn't that big a deal these days.

After all, you might have thought the Scotland job was at least as "big" as that of the ROI, yet despite there being a number of highly qualified Scottish candidates such as Strachan and Moyes, these will never have been available, so the SFA eventually opted for someone managing a mid-table side in the second tier of English football.



* - And you've got to wonder about their motives i.e. money? lack of choice?

I agree with the process in principle but think the execution has been poor. It has taken too long to interview the candidates, from whom the "short" list was anything but, and the choice of panel is odd and open to criticism / suspicion of conflicts of interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

I agree with the process in principle but think the execution has been poor. It has taken too long to interview the candidates, of whom the "short" list was anything but, and the choice of panel is odd and open to criticism / suspicion of conflicts of interest.

---

i agree with that. however i think there were few people willing to be on that panel.

The panel is a farce and this is why.

1.) The panel was chosen and selected by the FAI - so it's not independent.

2.) The subjectivity of the panel is open to question as there are conflicts of interest with regards to Givens.

3.) The panel met with the FAI to give a progress report. As the panel is meeting with the FAI prior to the selection process is concluded, the FAI has/ is having the opportunity to direct the panel and voice their opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eekers

i agree with that. however i think there were few people willing to be on that panel.

---

Probably. Hence the presence of company man Don Givens.

The inclusion of Howe is frankly bizarre, as he hasn't been anyway influential in the game since the start of the last third of the 20th century, and the inclusion of Houghton was a PR afterthought. Houghton was shoehorned onto the committe by a panicky Delaney in an effort to raise the Public profile of the board, as it soon became clear that all the public knew of Don Howe was that he used to be at Arsenal before they were any good, and all they knew about Don Givens was that he is an FAI employee who used to play in the 70's and was now an U21 manager with a poor string of results.

Sadly, the FAI chose spin over sucess: We didnt need the football version of the X factor, with it's juicy "will he / won't he?" tidbits and it's all star judging panel - we needed a formulated committee of Business heads and footballing brains to undertake a low profile yet committed process to decide in private who the shortlist is, and silently and persuasively approach the best men for the job.

The FAI are afraid of a refusal?

They should have sounded their chosen man out with a well informed intermediary on a scouting mission. If he bites, they get their business team on a plane to Mr X pronto.

If he doesnt bite, The FAI cunningly use the black arts of the media to suggest that "the FAI had heard Mr x was interested, and are flattered by his comments, but we have not yet made a decision on an appointment", and move swiftly on to number 2 on their very short list, improving and tweaking the necessary points.

It's called staying ahead of the game. Something the FAI are sadly unfamiliar with.

Whatever way it was done, It should not have been a 14 week media circus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ifk101

The panel is a farce and this is why.

1.) The panel was chosen and selected by the FAI - so it's not independent.

2.) The subjectivity of the panel is open to question as there are conflicts of interest with regards to Givens.

3.) The panel met with the FAI to give a progress report. As the panel is meeting with the FAI prior to the selection process is concluded, the FAI has/ is having the opportunity to direct the panel and voice their opinions.

---

I agree with you on point 2, but regarding point 1, who, if not the FAI, is going to appoint the panel? And who's going to appoint the people to choose the panel....etc. etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

I agree with you on point 2, but regarding point 1, who, if not the FAI, is going to appoint the panel? And who's going to appoint the people to choose the panel....etc. etc.

---

The problem with the appointment of Stan wasn't Stan himself but the process that lead to his appointment. Stan should never have gotten the job. Unfortunately the process that lead to Stan's appointment is still in place - it hasn't changed. The idea of a 3 member panel isn't new. Technically it is the exact same process that was used to appoint Stan. A panel of three appointed Stan. Delaney has just elaborated on the selection process somewhat to avoid future finger-pointing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denis The Red

His treatment of the media is like something from a Three Stooges movie. When they sacked Staunton they held the meeting in a different hotel than that which they media were told. Last week the so called update meeting was cordened off with the media kept a half mile away.

---

no problem at all with the way they are dealing with the media at the moment. finally learning from previous mistakes in that regard

for stans dismissal they ensured that the media were not in attendance and stan was therefore afforded the respect that a man with over 100 caps for his country deserves

and so what if the media were kept away from the FAI meeting last week? they were still given the "update" and were therefore able to report on it. maybe if they hadnt sunk to sending muppets to the Irish training base and indulged themselves in some of the worst gutter journalism seen in this country during stans term the FAI wouldnt have to use the tactics they currently successfully employ. fair play to the FAI if you ask me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbyrne

and so what if the media were kept away from the FAI meeting last week? they were still given the "update" and were therefore able to report on it. maybe if they hadnt sunk to sending muppets to the Irish training base and indulged themselves in some of the worst gutter journalism seen in this country during stans term the FAI wouldnt have to use the tactics they currently successfully employ. fair play to the FAI if you ask me

---

this statement beggars belief. it's via the media that the vast majority of fans find out anything thats happening with the national team. the exclusion of the media and their subsequent inability to do their job and ask questions screams of unaccountability (yes, i know, but more so than usual), especially at a time when fans are unbelieveably disenchanted with the FAI's managament and choices.