Next Senior Men's Team Manager - Runners and Riders

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ifk101

Don’t get the fondness for McCarthy. We scored 7, conceded 5 during his EC2020 qualification campaign. Switzerland and Denmark both conceded 6 goals but scored three times as much. And arguably out best performances under McCarthy were late goals to salvage draws. Our personality was the launching of balls into the box and hoping the second ball breaks our way, and an over-reliance on set plays to muster attempts on goal. Can work for a while, see McCarthy's initial spell at Cardiff, but ultimately is all huff and puff stuff, and gets found out quickly enough. Kenny’s time was up, but we were going nowhere under McCarthy (and were paying him twice as much as Kenny and gave him an additional €1million+ to leave his position).

---

Going nowhere? We were literally 1 goal away from automatic qualification in Micks last campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ifk101

Don’t get the fondness for McCarthy. We scored 7, conceded 5 during his EC2020 qualification campaign. Switzerland and Denmark both conceded 6 goals but scored three times as much. And arguably out best performances under McCarthy were late goals to salvage draws. Our personality was the launching of balls into the box and hoping the second ball breaks our way, and an over-reliance on set plays to muster attempts on goal. Can work for a while, see McCarthy's initial spell at Cardiff, but ultimately is all huff and puff stuff, and gets found out quickly enough. Kenny’s time was up, but we were going nowhere under McCarthy (and were paying him twice as much as Kenny and gave him an additional €1million+ to leave his position).

---

McCarthy had us playing better and with more spirit in a very limited amount of time than Kenny had in 4 years. McCarthy was a pragmatist. Kenny was a dreamer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weldoninhio

Going nowhere? We were literally 1 goal away from automatic qualification in Micks last campaign.

---

Yes going nowhere - we didn't qualify. The 1 goal away morale victory forgets the scrapping of wins against Gibraltar and Georgia, the one-dimension/ predictability of our play, our struggles to score goals, and the fact we picked up just 2 points in our last three games to scupper automatic qualification when the opportunity was there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fixer82

McCarthy had us playing better and with more spirit in a very limited amount of time than Kenny had in 4 years. McCarthy was a pragmatist. Kenny was a dreamer.

---

We parked the bus and played it long. Nothing to it. Sacked by three clubs since his time in charge ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weldoninhio

Going nowhere? We were literally 1 goal away from automatic qualification in Micks last campaign.

---

Correct Whelan hit the bar v Denmark, so we were literally an inch away

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

No, you very clearly said that.

---

Please provide the quote where I said that I wanted taxpayers to pay for the FAI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eirambler

Please provide the quote where I said that I wanted taxpayers to pay for the FAI.

---

Post 1338, where - in response to a direct question as to whether you wanted taxpayers to pay, you said "I specifically said I didn't expect that to happen."

When you answer questions you weren't asked (and badly), you have to draw the conclusion that you can't answer the question posed because you do agree with it.

If you want to clarify/correct your post, then that's fine.

So, in short, there's no post you can quote where I said that and you're basically just talking ****. Thanks for clarifying anyway.

Not entirely unexpected. McCarthy as assistant is interesting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eirambler

So, in short, there's no post you can quote where I said that and you're basically just talking ****. Thanks for clarifying anyway.

---

Sigh...

You were happy to spend "hundreds of thousands" extra and rather flippantly said that the taxpayer could cover any burden, while dismissing any financial concerns.

You didn't say the exact words "I want taxpayers to pay for the FAI", but to all intents and purposes that was the message behind your posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

Not entirely unexpected. McCarthy as assistant is interesting

---

Ah.

That's a bit disappointing. Nothing against O'Shea, but it seems we're a while away from appointing anyone yet. Still what - another two weeks till the March squad gets announced?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Sigh...

You were happy to spend "hundreds of thousands" extra and rather flippantly said that the taxpayer could cover any burden, while dismissing any financial concerns.

You didn't say the exact words "I want taxpayers to pay for the FAI", but to all intents and purposes that was the message behind your posts.

---

Well part of that is finally an admission that I didn't say something that I didn't say, so that's at least a start I suppose...

Mind you, not only did you accuse me of saying something I didn't say, you actually then came back to say that you were basing the accusation on an answer I didn't give! The mind boggles, quite frankly.

Anyway, there's a post edit function for when you and ontheotherhand want to correct your errors.

Very disappointing seeing the interim manager announcement, though I suspect it's because the best permanent announcement would have been worse again. They're not going to get someone decent unless and until they offer an appropriate financial package, it's as simple as that really.

I'm really trying not to read anything into this announcement being made on the same day as Lee Carsley's 50th birthday
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Carsley

Annoying that it's come to this. Certainly gives the impression that the FAI either can't agree or are unhappy with the candidates they have.

Bit of a free hit for O'Shea: if he does well over the two games his name will just naturally enter the conversation, if he does badly he's just interim so who cares, and Ireland wouldn't be expected to win either game anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eirambler

Well, there's a few possibilities. Most of them involved state funding in one form or another, - be it a loan or a bailout - which almost certainly wouldn't happen with a club. But at the end of it all there would still be a national football association and we'd continue to have a national football team.

Look, none of this is going to happen anyway for the sake of throwing a few hundred thousand extra to hire a better manager. Especially not in the context of the debts JD ran up. As I said earlier a better manager would be more likely to pay for himself, especially if the alternative is a Jim Crawford or a Stephen Bradley type or, god forbid, a Neil Lennon.

---

There's loads of ways to go back and edit posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

Not entirely unexpected. McCarthy as assistant is interesting

---

I'd previously been in the camp of giving the FAI time to get the right man in, this is just beyond a joke though.

Well if nothing else, it will be interesting to see how O'Shea sets the team up and plays, and to compare that to his time assisting Kenny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ifk101

Well if nothing else, it will be interesting to see how O'Shea sets the team up and plays, and to compare that to his time assisting Kenny.

---

Which begs the question why the FAI didn't do it once Kenny became a lame duck manager after the September window. At least then O'Shea being interim for this window would have meant he already had four games under his belt as interim.

Said it before but if they're appointing O'Shea as interim now then they're not confident of finding someone before June. If we do alright in these games they'll leave O'Shea as manager. Mowbury wanted him to stay at Birmingham but O'Shea wanted to leave to pursue management opportunities so probably should have seen this coming back then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JR89

Which begs the question why the FAI didn't do it once Kenny became a lame duck manager after the September window. At least then O'Shea being interim for this window would have meant he already had four games under his belt as interim.

Said it before but if they're appointing O'Shea as interim now then they're not confident of finding someone before June. If we do alright in these games they'll leave O'Shea as manager. Mowbury wanted him to stay at Birmingham but O'Shea wanted to leave to pursue management opportunities so probably should have seen this coming back then.

---

Odd one alright. You'd think gardening leave for Kenny at that point would have made sense if O'Shea as interim manager was on the list of options, which they must have had at that point....right? They probably couldn't have sacked Kenny but surely he could have been pushed to one side. Maybe he had enough allies left that it was just too messy to be worth it?

It's all a bit depressing now. But I like John O'Shea so......good for him I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eirambler

Well part of that is finally an admission that I didn't say something that I didn't say, so that's at least a start I suppose...

Mind you, not only did you accuse me of saying something I didn't say, you actually then came back to say that you were basing the accusation on an answer I didn't give! The mind boggles, quite frankly.

---

Not really. You made a suggestion and blithely noted the taxpayer could cover the tab if your idea of spending "an extra few hundred grand" on a manager didn't work out. You were directly challenged as to whether you really wanted that and you ignored the question, answering a different question instead.

Common political tactic - you don't answer the question you're asked because you can't, and you answer a different question instead because it makes you sound better.

If you want now to answer the question you were asked and say that you don't want the taxpayer to fund the manager, then fire ahead. But you'd also have to row back on your Delaney-esque suggestion we lash money at the manager's role and sure we'll see what happens.

On the manager - hasn't Lennon been told by the FAI he won't be getting the job?

It's a bit strange to tell someone they won't get the job without knowing who will get it. Are we still looking at Carlsey then? That's the angle the Mirror are taking on it, but the headline is far more substantial than the actual body of text.

Quote:

---

His appointment paves the way for the FAI to make one final push for England Under-21 manager Carsley.

The 40-time capped midfielder was adamant that he would take charge of England’s two Euro qualifiers next month - against Azerbaijan and Luxembourg.

He had given his commitment to his employers and to his coaching staff that he would be in the dugout for those games.

But with England not in competitive action again until their September 6 visit to Northern Ireland, it would give the FA ample time to replace the popular boss.

The FAI never fully closed the door on Carsley - and the appointment of O’Shea gives them the chance to secure a deal with their long-time top target, which allows him to fulfil his commitments to his current employers.

---

That kind of reads like a foot.ie post - bit of sensible speculation with no real insider info at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weldoninhio

I'd previously been in the camp of giving the FAI time to get the right man in, this is just beyond a joke though.

---

Best of luck to him. I would imagine along with paddy Mccarthy the prep and work on the training ground will be high level. The respect for his playing career can't be in doubt. His tactical nous within games obviously has not been tested to date so that's a huge risk at this level

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Not really. You made a suggestion and blithely noted the taxpayer could cover the tab if your idea of spending "an extra few hundred grand" on a manager didn't work out. You were directly challenged as to whether you really wanted that and you ignored the question, answering a different question instead.

Common political tactic - you don't answer the question you're asked because you can't, and you answer a different question instead because it makes you sound better.

If you want now to answer the question you were asked and say that you don't want the taxpayer to fund the manager, then fire ahead. But you'd also have to row back on your Delaney-esque suggestion we lash money at the manager's role and sure we'll see what happens.

---

I dont know why i am getting involved in this part of the discussion - and i am not trying to get in between you and Eirambler at all but isnt budgeting and financial reporting more of an art than a science anyway in practice? Its basically rules based fudge. I kind of agree with whoever said (liamoo or elated?) that the 200K that it sounds like we are talking about isnt really that much money to an organization like the FAI - its not "back of the couch" change now but at the same time its also not make or break stuff. Surely there is either a) a positive variance in some other ledger that covers it in a financial year or b) minor cuts can be made to all line items across the budget to find the 200K.

Might one reason that they're in no great hurry to make a permanent appointment be that at an annual salary of, say, €600k, each month the post remains vacant saves the FAI €50k (plus the cost of Assistants etc)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

Not entirely unexpected. McCarthy as assistant is interesting

---

Not bad considering all the yahoo-ing that has being going on !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

On the manager - hasn't Lennon been told by the FAI he won't be getting the job?

It's a bit strange to tell someone they won't get the job without knowing who will get it. Are we still looking at Carlsey then? That's the angle the Mirror are taking on it, but the headline is far more substantial than the actual body of text.


That kind of reads like a foot.ie post - bit of sensible speculation with no real insider info at all.

---

Is it? I'm looking to fill a role and for that role I want a candidate that ticks these certain boxes. If said candidate doesn't tick the boxes why would you waste their time or yours by stringing them along.

Though probably suits Lennon if he continues to be linked with the job as it keeps his name in the news for other jobs that might come up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ontheotherhand

Odd one alright. You'd think gardening leave for Kenny at that point would have made sense if O'Shea as interim manager was on the list of options, which they must have had at that point....right? They probably couldn't have sacked Kenny but surely he could have been pushed to one side. Maybe he had enough allies left that it was just too messy to be worth it?

It's all a bit depressing now. But I like John O'Shea so......good for him I suppose.

---

I like John O'Shea ~ I hope it works out for him and every-one ~ May the force be with us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

Might one reason that they're in no great hurry to make a permanent appointment be that at an annual salary of, say, €600k, each month the post remains vacant saves the FAI €50k (plus the cost of Assistants etc)?

---

Any chance of a dig-out ? !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

I dont know why i am getting involved in this part of the discussion - and i am not trying to get in between you and Eirambler at all but isnt budgeting and financial reporting more of an art than a science anyway in practice? Its basically rules based fudge. I kind of agree with whoever said (liamoo or elated?) that the 200K that it sounds like we are talking about isnt really that much money to an organization like the FAI - its not "back of the couch" change now but at the same time its also not make or break stuff. Surely there is either a) a positive variance in some other ledger that covers it in a financial year or b) minor cuts can be made to all line items across the budget to find the 200K.

---

There's an element of that, but I suppose the base point we're taking here is that the FAI's budget for the new manager takes into account the variances you refer to.

Let's say the FAI say "Do you know what - let's get Mick back on €1.3m per year. Sure it's only a few hundred grand extra". We don't sell any more tickets (ticket sales going quite well anyway) and we don't qualify for anything. Other strands of the family of football get uppity and start going to the press about how they could have done better stuff with the money.

This from an organisation (a) under intense scrutiny at the moment in terms of finances (b) that has admitted it doesn't have a lot of liquid assets at its disposal and (c) that has significant debt to pay off, which will likely come with repayment terms (or risk default).

So it seems very easy to spend too much by adding an extra few hundred grand to the bill (and I'd take "few" as 4/5 - so more than twice the €200k you're suggesting. €200k is a couple of hundred grand) - and then what? Eirambler has blithely suggested a bailout would be fine. That's a scenario I think the FAI absolutely has to avoid, and cannot play chicken with.

In that context, stretch the budget as much as you can by all means, but not so much that you can flippantly say "Ah sure the taxpayer will bail them out if it comes to it".

The interim appointment only makes sense if they have agreement with the man they want but hes currently employed or not available just yet for some reason. If the appointment is to allow them to "further narrow their search" then Canham can fcuk off. It has to be a done deal and I'd imagine that O'Shea and McCarthy could be part of new mans coaching staff so this window isnt a complete waste of time.

I said on another thread that if an interim is appointed then you can expect a lot of players to not turn up, only way around that is if you make it clear this is the beginning of the new regime and the new manager is following everything behind the scenes.

The single positive for me from this is that I personally believe that this still points towards Carsley. I think it got to the stage where it was too close to the England U21 games for him to walk away in good conscience and afterwards they dont have another game until September so it would give the FA plenty of time to get his replacement in. From what we have heard about Carsleys character I think this lines up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JR89

Is it? I'm looking to fill a role and for that role I want a candidate that ticks these certain boxes. If said candidate doesn't tick the boxes why would you waste their time or yours by stringing them along.

---

Maybe - but let's keep in mind that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush and all that.

I will say though that if we do end up with Carsley after all this hoo-ha, he'd want to be bloody good! :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razors left peg

The interim appointment only makes sense if they have agreement with the man they want but hes currently employed or not available just yet for some reason. If the appointment is to allow them to "further narrow their search" then Canham can fcuk off. It has to be a done deal and I'd imagine that O'Shea and McCarthy could be part of new mans coaching staff so this window isnt a complete waste of time.

I said on another thread that if an interim is appointed then you can expect a lot of players to not turn up, only way around that is if you make it clear this is the beginning of the new regime and the new manager is following everything behind the scenes.

The single positive for me from this is that I personally believe that this still points towards Carsley. I think it got to the stage where it was too close to the England U21 games for him to walk away in good conscience and afterwards they dont have another game until September so it would give the FA plenty of time to get his replacement in. From what we have heard about Carsleys character I think this lines up.

---

I don't see O'Shea being involved in the next set up unless he's the head coach. He left Birmingham to try get into management. If he does actually get involved then similar to Eustace I see him only sticking around for a short while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JR89

I don't see O'Shea being involved in the next set up unless he's the head coach. He left Birmingham to try get into management. If he does actually get involved then similar to Eustace I see him only sticking around for a short while.

---

Was he not fired by Birmingham for being part of the Rooney debacle?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razors left peg

Was he not fired by Birmingham for being part of the Rooney debacle?

---

Nope, sure Ashley Cole is still involved with Birmingham. Mowbray talked about O'Shea leaving and how he wanted him to stick around but O'Shea wanted to leave.

“John has left the football club,” Mowbray said after Blues’ 2-2 draw with Swansea City. “John came to see me. He wants to be a manager and wants a shot at it. We had a long chat, I tried to persuade him to stay.

“He came in yesterday, shook everyone’s hand and wished us all well. That’s fine, the change of the manager is what it is. He is going to go off, spend some time with his family, and look for the next opportunity.”

As an aside, Rooney was asked on "the Overlap" about what went wrong at Birmingham and he mentioned something on the lines of having too many coaches. He brought with him coaches from DC, people he worked with previously, with Cole and O'Shea being the new additions. Sounded like he regretted adding O'Shea or Cole/ or both to his coaching staff. But Mowbray obviously liked what he saw in O'Shea + Cole, so hoping O'Shea can surprise for the games he is in charge.

Disappointed. Nothing against Josh but I was hoping a new regime would present a reset but also a strong jumping on hook for any dual qualified players currently undecided.

Tony O'Donoghue reporting that a new manager will be announced early April on a four year contract. Says it at the end of this video that the FAI have confirmed it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JR89

Tony O'Donoghue reporting that a new manager will be announced early April on a four year contract. Says it at the end of this video that the FAI have confirmed it.

---

Have we ever given a 4 year contract previously? Would it not normally be 2 year? Big commitment

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razors left peg

Have we ever given a 4 year contract previously? Would it not normally be 2 year? Big commitment

---

Probably not, but could be a four year deal with a break clause. Would they be that desperate for Carsley that they agree to a four year contract without any clauses. He's definitely in a position of power that he could make those demands. He's got a decent job and the FAI are

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JR89

Probably not, but could be a four year deal with a break clause. Would they be that desperate for Carsley that they agree to a four year contract without any clauses. He's definitely in a position of power that he could make those demands. He's got a decent job and the FAI are

---

We heard from Kilbane that he was negotiating. He probably drove a hard bargain and wanted some job security given that he's walking away from a good job.

This has convinced me 100% its Carsley. If they rollout Paul Clement at this stage I might cry real tears :D

Have ye nothing better to be debating than hounding Eirambler over an (erroneous?) interpretation of (his?) reply to a different question and extrapolating that interpretation to universal damnation.
FFS cop on to yourselves.