I don't see why the narrative of "win/lose" is appropriate at all in these type of circumstances. I don't like commenting on cases in which none of us have anything near the full details, but if we look at these types of cases generally, what happened could be seen to vindicate all parties.
Imagine this scenario: A player gets injured. He believes he's not responsible for paying for his treatment. His union agrees with him and advocates for him.
His employer tries to get their insurers to pay. The insurers contest their liability. The employers counter-contest this, as is their right. All parties are acting without malice, and in defence of their own position.
Eventually, the insurers concede liability. The employers put the wheels in motion. The player gets his treatment.
I can't say for sure if this applied in Gary Dunphy's case, but it would be a familiar enough pattern of organisational behaviour. It's not ideal, but it seems perfectly rational behaviour by all parties, and little need for a villain/victim story-line.
Dodge, what favours are Waterford looking for? And yes, there may be a bit of pot calling the kettle black with regard to finances, but they surely have the right to ask such questions of the organisation that is supposed to police their own financial probity?
Bookmarks