I'll stick with what the African players who were playing for him said at the tike ten years ago. I think they probably had a bit more to go on in terms of forming an opinion. Like I said earlier I've no idea if he's a racist or not but based on his quote his clarification and the reaction of his players I'm inclined towards him not being one more so than he is. The point I was trying to make earlier is it could be either way and anyone who is 100% convinced he is a ra ist based on the evidence has their mind made up before they even start to evaluate things
I'd almost settle for anyone as manager at this point. They can hardly be worse then Kenny and with the young talent coming through we just need someone competent for things to improve
That is exactly the point - these players are under contract and the racist is the person picking the team. They are facing a double whammy when it comes to the power and control Sagnol and the club had over them.
This is not about being 'convinced' that Sagnol is a racist - his own words demonstrate his outlook. His so-called 'apology' was him claiming that it was 'lack of clarity' and 'imperfect semantics' - that is not a f*cking apology and in no way could it be described as such.
Sagnol has never apologised - despite numerous opportunities - particularly when he was favourite for the Ghana job.
Lack of answers leaves door open for John O’Shea to become permanent Ireland manager - Irish Times
https://archive.is/oJrM3
Interested to get a view on this. If the next permanent manager ended up being John O'Shea, where would that leave the standing of Hill and Canham do people think? Would their positions be completely untenable, would they be heavily bruised but able to carry on, or would they walk away from the car crash completely unharmed despite having to walk back pretty much every word Canham said in his press conference last month?
I just read that over my morning coffee.
Seems like it's going to be O'Shea. Dara O'Shea says the players want an Irishman, Alex Ferguson tips him for the job... The article smacks of one of those planted pieces in the media designed to gauge opinion, and manipulate it favourably. The FAI learnt pretty quickly from flying some kites that Lennon and Coleman wouldn't be popular choices.
I joked with some pals last week that my spirits are so broken by this saga that I just want O'Shea appointed now. The reply was, yeah if these games go well for him...
But no, I meant regardless of how well the games go for him!
Eamonn Sweeney ran a piece at the weekend saying Hill and Canham have shown themselves to be incompetent. You've got to bring Bonner into that criticism too. I'd say it's probably fair especially if Carsley is to be taken at his word that the only discussion with them was an informal one last November. I found that hard to believe. What have they been doing in the meantime?
Let's see what they say about it . If it's O'Shea I'd like the press to forensically probe into every step of the "process".
Last edited by Stuttgart88; 26/03/2024 at 8:38 AM.
They'd be fine I reckon. We - well I suppose I should speak for myself - can be guilty of thinking the wider public are as interseted in this saga as the hardcore forum fans whereas loads of them wouldn't have followed it at all. They'll hear John O'Shea, know we did fine in these friendlies (all going ok this evening) and think yeah, that makes sense. He has a fine store of goodwill.
I would be a bit annoyed if it ends up being him and we pay him £550k py or whatever the figure that was cited was. JOSH has zero managerial experience and was on the payroll at what can only one assume is fraction of that these past few years. Hiring him would be a punt, and while you could perhaps argue that is the case with any managerial hire, it doesn't sit right with me that he'd get whatever the #1 target (Carsley presumably) would have.
I just don't see how it would be anything other than complete humiliation for Canham. He ruled O'Shea out last month, surely he can't turn around now and hire him and retain any credibility whatsoever in his own position.
John O'Shea isn't a manager at this point in that he has no experience whatsoever of being the main man. If he gets it he's basically a cover for Brian Kerr 2.0. Kerr will be running the show behind the scenes and O'Shea will do front of house stuff, press conferences etc. but it will be Kerr's team really.
Appointing O'Shea would demonstrate utter incompetence on behalf of Hill and Canham (and Bonnar).
The stuff about an Irishman is nonsense - Alex Ferguson would back any Irish player at Man U with the exception of Roy Keane (it adds to his legacy) - and the one qualified Irishman who has a long and relatively successful track record in club and international management (by some considerable distance) was dismissed out of hand at the start of this whole process - Chris Hughton.
John O'Shea is a young coach with little experience - and his record as a coach could best be described as 'poor' - a poor job at Stoke - a poor job under Kenny - and an awful job under Rooney. O'Shea isn't even best of the young coaches - Barry-Murphy and Stephen Reid are both well ahead of him and more highly regarded.
I agree wrt the full salary package. But overall i'd be happy with him. I'm actually quite excited by Paddy McCarthy's involvement - he's one to watch I think. And I have a feeling Whelan has something to offer too. I'm not convinced by Eirambler's reasoning about this essentially being a Kerr team fronted by JOS. I think that's understating the strength of character of the younger lads.
If the salary package is sensible I'd be happy to go with O'Shea and co.
Of the others only Anthony Barry really grabs me and he'd be speculative too. And if he was successful we'd have to concede that maybe BOOMSHAKALAKA had a point
BBM would be interesting alright.
I think you need a bit of luck with a managerial appointment: you need the right man for the right job at the right time. I can see a credible picture where JOS is currently a better fit for this job than for any of the club jobs he has been involved in.
Giving the job to O'Shea on the basis of one game would be utterly ridiculous.
We were more organised than we ever looked under Kenny, but that is a pretty low bar.
We didn't even look like we knew who was on penalty duty.
I think I am in the same boat regarding O'Shea (but equally don't know if I've just been worn down to accept it). He talks a good game, has an aura and credibility that SK was sorely lacking even 4 years later, his first game showed there's life in the Irish dog yet and I do love the team around him (having Kerr there, fronting or not, is a good thing for us)... they could do alright. I dont know though... friendlies are one thing, competitive games - any competitive game - is different gravy. As Eirambler says, there will be some stink around Canham and co for a while if it turns out to be O'Shea. I had thought, as others here mentioned, that the current team would be the backroom team for the new man - and all based on Canhams comments.
Yep just to clarify, quibbles about potential salary aside, I'd be ok with O'Shea. He and his team pass the crucial gut test, and while the eye test results are pending, another good performance this evening will help matters there. Possibly being naive but unless they pull a rabbit out of the bag I'm not seeing a great alternative, Poyet I suppose with his connection to JOSH would make sense but you'd think he'd want his own backroom staff.
Bookmarks