John Delaney

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

13/09/2007, 9:03 PM
barney

Quote:

Originally Posted by khoop

Not quite. The term you were looking for is "apologist".

Yeah you're right. It was a typo. Always making that mistake.

Listen I'm in a pickle. I have to have a report on Mr. John's desk for the morning on why the fans don't like him. Tell me why you think he should be fired and if you stay clear of generic nonsense then I'll give you a gold star.

My job depends on this.
13/09/2007, 9:03 PM
Maroon 7

The haircut alone is grounds for a sacking IMO.
13/09/2007, 9:28 PM
Aaron

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0913/9ne...88346,null,230

:rolleyes:
13/09/2007, 9:36 PM
khoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by City till I Die

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0913/9ne...88346,null,230

:rolleyes:

That link seems to be faulty.

When I clicked on it, there was a Monty Python sketch.
13/09/2007, 10:03 PM
geysir

JD said in the interview that all he was concerned with now was getting to the Brandywell. The €5k must be ready to be collected.
14/09/2007, 12:11 AM
holidaysong

Delaney Out?

Sure I'm just a disgruntled Dundalk fan.
14/09/2007, 7:18 AM
pineapple stu

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney

I would take issue with the charge that he is responsible for any destruction of Waterford United. That isn't true. There are a lot of people in Waterford whose attitudes have damaged the club, but I don't think Delaney is one of them and even if he is, there are many more that should shoulder far more of the blame.

As far as I know - and the Waterford lads will confirm this - he was a director of the club, and so is as much responsible for blownig E250k received on flotation as anyone else.
14/09/2007, 10:30 AM
co. down green

'Staunton believes that there's no common sense in calling for a manager's head after every defeat. Yet it is the common sense of appointing him in the first place that appears to be the real issue in the aftermath of the latest setback'

So true.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/socc...n-1080220.html
14/09/2007, 11:41 AM
barney

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

:D

Licencing is still a farce, with clubs running up huge debts, and the FAI did nothing to stop the implosion last year of Shels and Dublin City. The licencing farce is something to resign over, in my opinion.

How can the FAI be held responsible for Shels and Dublin City? Should the responsibility not have been on the clubs themselves? Shels lived beyond their means and took a big gamble on making the European breakthrough. It backfired. You don't hear many people in England taking a pop at the FA over Leeds United. You don't see the head of the Spanish FA being held accountable because Real Madrid overspent by tens of millions and had to be bailed out by the government. That's because they dug their own hole like Shels. When the FAI had to take action they did and relegated Shels this season. It was something most people here said they were too spineless to do.

Dublin City was unsustainable due to their lack of infrastructure and support. That isn't the FAI's fault. Perhaps they shouldn't have been given a license to play last season but is that exclusively the fault of the FAI? What about the eircom League. Again, I'm only asking coz I'm not all that familiar with the process. In England clubs go into administration all the time (and occasionally fold) but the head of the FA is not held accountable, because it is seen primarily as the club's responsibility to ensure that they are sustainable.

Look at Longford this season. The FAI have potentially saved them with the firm but fair way that they have dealt with them. They deducted them 6 points and warned them that they'd be out if they didn't sort themselves out. Longford seem to have gotten the message.

They licensing process is new and, like anything new, surely there will be teething problems. The situation now is surely better than it was 5-10 years ago?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Prize money is up, but so are league fees. In fact, only the top five clubs in the Premier and the top club in the First will see the increase in their prize money outstrip the increase in their league fees. The bottom two clubs in the First Division won't get any prize money. With respect, it sounds like you've heard things and are regurgitating them without understanding all the facts.

In net terms are they putting more money in than before? If so, at least it shows a commitment to investing in the game. If what you say is true, and I have no doubt that it is, then I believe, like you, that they could distribute it better. Has anyone asked the FAI for the reasons they have chosen to divide the money up like this and if so what was the reply?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

The Genesis Report on the eL was a complete farce, and one which was torn to shreds here (see also this summary for one example of the white lies in the report). It is evident Delaney - as head of the FAI - either didn't read the report before implementing its recommendations, or else had a particular goal in mind and requested any report to validate his opinions. That, also, is something to resign over.

I know little of the Genesis report to be honest. What goal do you think Delaney may have had in mind? Did he implement its recommendations or not (someone else said he didn't on this thread)? What could and should have been done differently?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

The Stan and Robbo issue has been covered. That shows Delaney is not up to the job.

Not really. He hired the wrong man and gave him too long of a contract. Fair enough. Maybe he saw van Basten and Klinsmann and thought Stan the Plank could do something similar. He said he'd deliver a 'world class' manager and clearly didn't.

But who was the alternative? Dalglish, Venables, Kerr, Aldridge, Stapleton, Burley? All has beens or never weres and they were the names bandied about at the time. They probably all would have done better than than Stan but would hardly have been world class either.

If he sacks Stan now, who comes in? It costs the FAI a million to pay Stan off and then fork out another big(ger) wage to get a new man in (coz the new man couldn't be a 'rinky dink' manager.) Then there is no guarantee that the new man will get us to the World Cup. So the FAI would be forking out millions to be essentially in the same position. Would that be responsible use of the Association's funds?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

The way the eL fans' ticket allocation was suddenly cut by 70%, a cut which he publicly defended until effectively threatened with legal action, and a cut which came at the same time as others were promoted from the block booking waiting list, is further cause to resign. It amounted to actively trying to take tickets off one group of block bookers (coincidentally the one group who had held Delaney protests before) to give them to another group.

If that was true and could be proven then yes there is a case to answer.

I'm not trying to say John Delaney is some sort of great fella or anything. Obviously he isn't but people are just looking for a pound of flesh here. How would the game here improve if Delaney resigned? If things are that bad, then is it not the structure of the FAI that needs changing. From what I understand, they have made massive changes in the last twelve months, and these things need time to bed in.
14/09/2007, 11:56 AM
onceahoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney

How can the FAI be held responsible for Shels and Dublin City? Should the responsibility not have been on the clubs themselves? Shels lived beyond their means and took a big gamble on making the European breakthrough. It backfired. You don't hear many people in England taking a pop at the FA over Leeds United. You don't see the head of the Spanish FA being held accountable because Real Madrid overspent by tens of millions and had to be bailed out by the government. That's because they dug their own hole like Shels. When the FAI had to take action they did and relegated Shels this season. It was something most people here said they were too spineless to do.

Dublin City was unsustainable due to their lack of infrastructure and support. That isn't the FAI's fault. Perhaps they shouldn't have been given a license to play last season but is that exclusively the fault of the FAI? What about the eircom League. Again, I'm only asking coz I'm not all that familiar with the process. In England clubs go into administration all the time (and occasionally fold) but the head of the FA is not held accountable, because it is seen primarily as the club's responsibility to ensure that they are sustainable.

Look at Longford this season. The FAI have potentially saved them with the firm but fair way that they have dealt with them. They deducted them 6 points and warned them that they'd be out if they didn't sort themselves out. Longford seem to have gotten the message.

They licensing process is new and, like anything new, surely there will be teething problems. The situation now is surely better than it was 5-10 years ago?

Jesus man. Go back and read old posts on the Shels debacle and Dublin City. The world and his wife knew it was going to end in tears but the Son Of Joe refused to take action and continued to support these clubs. He should have resigned then for incompetence. :mad:
14/09/2007, 12:11 PM
Noelys Guitar

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney

How can the FAI be held responsible for Shels and Dublin City? Should the responsibility not have been on the clubs themselves? Shels lived beyond their means and took a big gamble on making the European breakthrough. It backfired. You don't hear many people in England taking a pop at the FA over Leeds United. You don't see the head of the Spanish FA being held accountable because Real Madrid overspent by tens of millions and had to be bailed out by the government. That's because they dug their own hole like Shels. When the FAI had to take action they did and relegated Shels this season. It was something most people here said they were too spineless to do.

Dublin City was unsustainable due to their lack of infrastructure and support. That isn't the FAI's fault. Perhaps they shouldn't have been given a license to play last season but is that exclusively the fault of the FAI? What about the eircom League. Again, I'm only asking coz I'm not all that familiar with the process. In England clubs go into administration all the time (and occasionally fold) but the head of the FA is not held accountable, because it is seen primarily as the club's responsibility to ensure that they are sustainable.

Look at Longford this season. The FAI have potentially saved them with the firm but fair way that they have dealt with them. They deducted them 6 points and warned them that they'd be out if they didn't sort themselves out. Longford seem to have gotten the message.

They licensing process is new and, like anything new, surely there will be teething problems. The situation now is surely better than it was 5-10 years ago?

In net terms are they putting more money in than before? If so, at least it shows a commitment to investing in the game. If what you say is true, and I have no doubt that it is, then I believe, like you, that they could distribute it better. Has anyone asked the FAI for the reasons they have chosen to divide the money up like this and if so what was the reply?

I know little of the Genesis report to be honest. What goal do you think Delaney may have had in mind? Did he implement its recommendations or not (someone else said he didn't on this thread)? What could and should have been done differently?

Not really. He hired the wrong man and gave him too long of a contract. Fair enough. Maybe he saw van Basten and Klinsmann and thought Stan the Plank could do something similar. He said he'd deliver a 'world class' manager and clearly didn't.

But who was the alternative? Dalglish, Venables, Kerr, Aldridge, Stapleton, Burley? All has beens or never weres and they were the names bandied about at the time. They probably all would have done better than than Stan but would hardly have been world class either.

If he sacks Stan now, who comes in? It costs the FAI a million to pay Stan off and then fork out another big(ger) wage to get a new man in (coz the new man couldn't be a 'rinky dink' manager.) Then there is no guarantee that the new man will get us to the World Cup. So the FAI would be forking out millions to be essentially in the same position. Would that be responsible use of the Association's funds?

If that was true and could be proven then yes there is a case to answer.

I'm not trying to say John Delaney is some sort of great fella or anything. Obviously he isn't but people are just looking for a pound of flesh here. How would the game here improve if Delaney resigned? If things are that bad, then is it not the structure of the FAI that needs changing. From what I understand, they have made massive changes in the last twelve months, and these things need time to bed in.

Same line as the FAI then. Transition phases and "bedding in". A Half empty Croker against Cyprus will put an end to the "bedding in" and the fella as you call him will throw Stan under the bus (or train). The "fella" wobbled when interviewed outside of the Mansion house before the Wales game. Asked if Stan would keep his job if Ireland lost that game he demured. Which teams do you support by the way?
14/09/2007, 12:59 PM
fergalr

Barney is an interesting poster and dogged in in support of Delaney.

Fair dues to him as he seems to be very well informed about all aspects of the local game, except for one glaring omission:

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney

I know little of the Genesis report to be honest

How come? Given your interest and knowledge of the game how is it that you never bothered to read the report?
14/09/2007, 1:19 PM
pineapple stu

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney

How can the FAI be held responsible for Shels and Dublin City? Should the responsibility not have been on the clubs themselves?

It should, but UEFA Licencing was also brought in to force clubs to get their houses in order. The FAI ignored it and allowed the two clubs to trade recklessly. They flouted their own rules because they couldn't have been bothered to implement them. The FAI were in control of Licencing, so the buck there stops with Delaney.

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney

Look at Longford this season. The FAI have potentially saved them with the firm but fair way that they have dealt with them. They deducted them 6 points and warned them that they'd be out if they didn't sort themselves out. Longford seem to have gotten the message.

How do you know Longford have gotten the message? What have they done since to convince you of that? Have they sold their costlier players to cut back on wages? No they haven't. From the outside, they look like they've done nothing, and I don't see how you can claim otherwise.

Again, another situation which should have been nipped in the bud by the FAI a long time ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney

They licensing process is new and, like anything new, surely there will be teething problems.

Showing your ignorance here. It's five years old.

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney

The situation now is surely better than it was 5-10 years ago?

You show me a club ten years ago with combined losses of two million. There's at least three today. Improvement?

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney

In net terms are they putting more money in than before?

Spin worthy of Delaney himself. The FAI are actively encouraging an unbalanced league, benefitting six clubs at the expense of the other 16. Not good management.

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney

Did he implement its recommendations or not (someone else said he didn't on this thread)?

He did. Its recommendations were nonsense, is the problem. You'll have to ask Delaney what his motives were.

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney

Not really. He hired the wrong man and gave him too long of a contract. Maybe he saw van Basten and Klinsmann and thought Stan the Plank could do something similar.

Oh come on.

Your alternatives at least have experience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney

Would that be responsible use of the Association's funds?

So what you're saying is Delaney didn't allow himself an exit clause? That he committed to either havnig an untried manager for four years, or else run up a huge cost in getting rid of him? Not very good management, don't you think?

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney

If that was true and could be proven then yes there is a case to answer.

It's true. I and many other posters here were involved.
14/09/2007, 1:33 PM
geysir

I dont think Barney is supporting Delaney.

AFAIA the decisions about Irish football should be made by a board and fair enough they should hire a backstabbing c�nt like Delaney to execute those decisions, a man who can kick ass and pull off stroke after stroke on behalf of Irish football.
Now the tail is wagging the dog. How does he do it? blackmail? spineless board members?
He knows feck all about managing a football team yet he thinks he can decide on who should be managing. Sooner or later he will dig a big enough hole for himself but will there be anybody left in the FAI with the balls to stick the knife in him.

Regardless of how Kerr did as a manager he gave a good impression that he could do the job, no one goes around hanging the guy who did the interviews (even if he was a norn iron fekker).
14/09/2007, 2:01 PM
John83

Some of my feelings about John Delaney are summed up in this:
http://www.stigonline.com/misc/death...athmatch59.htm

That just scratches the surface though.
14/09/2007, 11:10 PM
barney

Quote:

Originally Posted by onceahoop

Jesus man. Go back and read old posts on the Shels debacle and Dublin City. The world and his wife knew it was going to end in tears but the Son Of Joe refused to take action and continued to support these clubs. He should have resigned then for incompetence. :mad:

What should Son of Joe have done. In real terms explain to me how he personally, or the FAI, was at fault.

Dublin City was clearly unsustainable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

It should, but UEFA Licencing was also brought in to force clubs to get their houses in order. The FAI ignored it and allowed the two clubs to trade recklessly. They flouted their own rules because they couldn't have been bothered to implement them. The FAI were in control of Licencing, so the buck there stops with Delaney.

What could and should they have done differently? Also why are we the only nation looking to hold one man responsible for the bad management of other clubs. No one even attenpted to point the finger at Adam Crozier when Leeds went tits up. No-one pointed the finger at the Spansh FA when Madrid reckelssly spent. Is it that this country is full of small time attitudes where we want a head on a plate for everything that goes wrong?

Also aren't they attempting to introduce a rule that says that only 65% of your turnover can be spent on wages to avoid this sort of thing happening again? The fact that this is close to impossible to implement illustrates that surely the clubs have to take greater responsibility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

How do you know Longford have gotten the message? What have they done since to convince you of that? Have they sold their costlier players to cut back on wages? No they haven't. From the outside, they look like they've done nothing, and I don't see how you can claim otherwise.

I'm just making an educated guess. The FAI deducted them six points and told them to have their house in order by the end of May. They didn't take any further action at that point. The FAI showed with Shels that they weren't afraid to get tough with clubs. They fired a strong warning shot to Longford as well. Alan Matthews hasn't walked away so I've got to assume that they are paying wages. I know a former player and was talking to him in May and he said that he EXPECTED to be paid money that was outstanding to him by the end of the month and was given a guarantee it would be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Showing your ignorance here. It's five years old.

Fair enough, I've already said I'm not 100% familiar with it. But while the proces seems to have failed the first test, isn't it possible that the FAI will learn their lesson? Isn't it possible they've done so already? In any business, processes take time to start working, you don't just dump them if they fail the first test.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

You show me a club ten years ago with combined losses of two million. There's at least three today. Improvement?

Which clubs? And when you say losses are they unsustainable losses? Again, to take the English example, Man U are over 600 million in debt and reportedly paying 100million interest per year. No one there is pointing the finger at the FA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Spin worthy of Delaney himself. The FAI are actively encouraging an unbalanced league, benefitting six clubs at the expense of the other 16. Not good management.

I've already said that I agree with you that it looks unbalanced. Has anyone asked the FAI what the thinking is behind it? Seldom does something that looks so obviously bereft of sense contain no logic at all. I'd be interested to hear what they say. Has anyone asked them, and if so, what did they say? It is in no ones interest to have just six clubs, least of all the FAI.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

He did. Its recommendations were nonsense, is the problem. You'll have to ask Delaney what his motives were.

Who was responsible for actually commissioning the report?

Which recommendations were nonsense? If you have a link, a bit more extensive than the last one, or if you could give me a synopsis, I'd be grateful.

Sorry, I thought you were inferring that there was some obvious hidden agenda.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Oh come on.

Your alternatives at least have experience.

That's not my point. My point was that he promised a world class manager and couldn't deliver one. His list of alternatives, in all likelihood, would not have fared much better than Stan. He couldn't deliver on his promise. Should that mean he gets the bullet?

In real terms, if John Delaney was not head of the FAI in 2005, would we have gotten a world class manager? The answer is plainly no. Therefore I don't think he should perish on the basis of appointing Stan. I do think he got a lot wrong with the appointment (the length of the contract being the most glaring) but you also have to remember that he didn't make the decision on his own. If he did then the Association needs restructuring.

Also on the Waterford thing, your inference was that he was solely responsible for their current status. I don't know if he was a director at the time they got the 250K but even if he was, Waterford fans that I know will tell you that it was another (reasonably well known) man that blew most of it. If Delaney was part of a board, that hardly makes him solely responsible. Also, Waterford have hardly covered themselves in glory with the running of the club since Delaney departed.

To be honest, I am not a John Delaney fan. I just think that there is no purpose to be served by getting rid of him. Will everything get better if he goes?
15/09/2007, 12:07 PM
geysir

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney

In real terms, if John Delaney was not head of the FAI in 2005, would we have gotten a world class manager? The answer is plainly no. Therefore I don't think he should perish on the basis of appointing Stan. I do think he got a lot wrong with the appointment (the length of the contract being the most glaring) but you also have to remember that he didn't make the decision on his own. If he did then the Association needs restructuring.

It is pretty clear to one and all that Stan was a JD appointment, but a living walking Robson was then in the picture.
When the quality of the appointment came into serious question later, JD claimed it that the appointment was recommended by a 3 man FAI committee and the the board accepted it. In the same interview, JD pointed to successful achievements in other areas since his own appointment.

So we have a classic case of, if it works then I will take the credit.
If it doesn�t work then it was a committee decision.
15/09/2007, 12:29 PM
head the ball

[QUOTE=holidaysong;770922]Delaney Out?

Sure I'm just a disgruntled Dundalk fan.[/QUOTE

Are'nt you all permanently disgruntled in Dundalk. How are we supposed to know the difference?A genetic disorder I believe in that part of the world!
Thank god for the bypass.
17/09/2007, 6:30 PM
pineapple stu

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney

What could and should they have done differently?

Why did they bring in UEFA Licencing then? Why didn't they follow its recommendations instead of letting things get this far? They had it laid out exactly what to do - deny the relevant clubs a licence - but instead they ignored it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney

Also aren't they attempting to introduce a rule that says that only 65% of your turnover can be spent on wages to avoid this sort of thing happening again?

They can attempt a lot. Let's talk when something happens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney

I'm just making an educated guess.

My educated guess says previous punishments have done nothing. Rovers' board continued reckless trading after getting points docked in 2005 until the fans themselves took legal action to get rid of them. Shels are still continuing the exact same business plan as last year, but on a smaller scale (taking advances on the ground sale from Kilkenny to cover losses). Why think Longford are any different? All would be sorted if the FAI got strict on licencing instead of docking points every now and again because clubs didn't file accounts (as in Rovers' and Longford's case, and which simply isn't the issue)

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney

Fair enough, I've already said I'm not 100% familiar with it. But while the proces seems to have failed the first test, isn't it possible that the FAI will learn their lesson?

Not going on any lessons from the association's entire history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney

Which clubs? And when you say losses are they unsustainable losses?

Drogs, Pat's and Shels. Possibly Longford. As a percentage of turnover, they far exceed Man Utd's debts. As Shels if their losses were sustainable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney

Who was responsible for actually commissioning the report?

Which recommendations were nonsense? If you have a link, a bit more extensive than the last one, or if you could give me a synopsis, I'd be grateful.

The FAI. You can read the report for yourself or dig up one of the many threads on it here. The recommendations all came from the report wihch contained white lies, mistruths and non sequiturs. They recommendations have failed before (ten team league) or were completely nonsense (Celtic league).

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney

That's not my point. My point was that he promised a world class manager and couldn't deliver one. His list of alternatives, in all likelihood, would not have fared much better than Stan.

Anyone with managerial experience would have done better than Stan. The names you mentioned aren't managerial retards; they're not massive names, but they've done OK. Delaney is on record saying he never interviewed John Aldridge (who took a First Division team to the League Cup Final and FA Cup quarters on a very smaller budget) for the job because he had paperwork to do.

Only person who's talking about a world class manager is Delaney. Rest of us would be happy with a manager.

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney

Also on the Waterford thing, your inference was that he was solely responsible for their current status.

No it's not. I said he was responsible. Which I stand by.

Everything won't be better if he goes - some other gobsheen will come along for us to hate. But I still want him to go ASAP.

Seriously, no problems debating this, but if you want to support him, please do some research first!
18/09/2007, 12:23 AM
Superhoops

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

..... You can read the report for yourself or dig up one of the many threads on it here. The recommendations all came from the report wihch contained white lies, mistruths and non sequiturs. They recommendations have failed before (ten team league) or were completely nonsense (Celtic league).....!

Can you summarise what these were?

Can these 'white lies, mistruths and non sequiturs' be factually refuted or is it just your opinion?

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page