John Delaney

**pineapple stu** · 18/09/2007, 5:06 PM

I've already posted a link in this thread backing up one such instance. For more, do a search for threads on the report forums. As noted, I'm not going to get into past debates with posters who are as opinionated as you are while also having done as little research as you evidently have.

**Bald Student** · 18/09/2007, 6:23 PM

The problem with calling for 'Delaney Out' is that, even if he were to get a knife in the back, he'd only be replaced by someone else as bad. Anyone capable of becoming head of the FAI is automatically unsuited to the position.

I think that Delaney is about as good as it gets. He seems to be interested in improving the game and has some competence. His problems and mistakes all seem to stem from the fact that he has spent his entire adult life involved in FAI politics and is entirely a product of that system. He sees anyone who disagrees with him as an enemy to be rooted out and to protect his own position he will only allow yes men into positions of authority.

His style brings some good with it, he has removed a lot of the petty infighting that was holding back the league and he seems to be removing the fighting between senior, junior and schoolboy clubs as well. The problem is that he doesn't see that people involved in the game can disagree with him without taking is as an attack on his authority. He's ended up alienating a lot of people by picking silly fights like fining Pat Skully and Kevin McDaid for holding reasonable opinions.

**pineapple stu** · 18/09/2007, 6:33 PM

Originally Posted by Bald Student

he has removed a lot of the petty infighting that was holding back the league

Is this the same way Stalin removed a lot of the petty infighting in USSR? Or Hitler removed a lot of the petty infighting in Germany?

**barney** · 18/09/2007, 6:35 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

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.

To be honest mate, I'm not going to sift through pages of a report just to debate this on a message board. I might do it on my own time. But the above quote just proves what I thought all along.

**barney** · 18/09/2007, 6:36 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Is this the same way Stalin removed a lot of the petty infighting in USSR? Or Hitler removed a lot of the petty infighting in Germany?

Seriously, cop on.

**Bald Student** · 18/09/2007, 6:39 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Is this the same way Stalin removed a lot of the petty infighting in USSR? Or Hitler removed a lot of the petty infighting in Germany?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

**pineapple stu** · 18/09/2007, 6:45 PM

Dammit! Forgot about that!!!!

[It's true here though.

]

barney - good man. Happy to come on here and challenge people's opinions with a remarkable opinionatedness, but unwilling to do any research into the facts.

**John83** · 18/09/2007, 8:37 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Is this the same way Stalin removed a lot of the petty infighting in USSR? Or Hitler removed a lot of the petty infighting in Germany?

The trains still ran on time. It's not like he's going to exterminate the Jews, is it?

**SkStu** · 18/09/2007, 9:08 PM

Originally Posted by John83

The trains still ran on time.

couldnt have been Stan driving then!

**MariborKev** · 18/09/2007, 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by Bald Student

The problem is that he doesn't see that people involved in the game can disagree with him without taking is as an attack on his authority. He's ended up alienating a lot of people by picking silly fights like fining Pat Skully and Kevin McDaid for holding reasonable opinions.

I'm at it again......

http://foot.ie/blog/king-of-spin-could-be-caught-out/

Cash or cheque for the fine John?

**Schumi** · 19/09/2007, 12:53 AM

Originally Posted by Maribor

Cash or cheque for the fine John?

Back down again, I'd say.

**barney** · 19/09/2007, 9:04 AM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

barney - good man. Happy to come on here and challenge people's opinions with a remarkable opinionatedness, but unwilling to do any research into the facts.

I'm not going to get into a point scoring contest with you. I just wondered why people wanted Delaney out. I've yet to hear a compelling reason why he should go - just a lot of rhetoric and small town attitudes.

If you honestly think that I'm going to read through pages and pages of stuff just to debate something on an internet message board then you are seriously deluded.

**pineapple stu** · 19/09/2007, 12:45 PM

Rhetoric?

Small town attitudes?

Do you intend those phrases to actually mean anything, or did you just throw them in because they sounded good? Do you awnt to highlight an example of either (or both, preferably)?

Earlier you said that, if he took 70% of tickets of a large block booker, that was definite grounds for something. You seem to have forgotten that already. That's only one point which has been raised.

**osarusan** · 19/09/2007, 2:13 PM

Originally Posted by barney

If you honestly think that I'm going to read through pages and pages of stuff just to debate something on an internet message board then you are seriously deluded.

You are the person who started this thread, asking for reasons. You've been given some. You now say you couldn't be bothered debating this.

You fully admit you don't know much about the Genesis report, you fully admit you couldn't be bothered doing any research, yet you say

Originally Posted by barney

I've yet to hear a compelling reason why he should go - just a lot of rhetoric and small town attitudes.

you've been given reasons, and told where to find more details - the fact that you won't take the time to do that is your fault, and yours alone.

On the first page of this thread, you said this-

6. The Genesis Report has not been fully implemented
I don't know a lot about this to be honest and I'd be interested to hear more detail.

This is clearly not the case.

On the second page you say this-

I'll have a proper look at the facts of what you've posted.

You haven't done this, and have said you couldn't be bothered doing so.

**pineapple stu** · 19/09/2007, 4:48 PM

Couldn't have put it better myself.

**barney** · 19/09/2007, 9:39 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Rhetoric?

Small town attitudes?

Do you intend those phrases to actually mean anything, or did you just throw them in because they sounded good? Do you awnt to highlight an example of either (or both, preferably)?

Earlier you said that, if he took 70% of tickets of a large block booker, that was definite grounds for something. You seem to have forgotten that already. That's only one point which has been raised.

Small town, small time attitude:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

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.

Rhetoric:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

the report wihch contained white lies, mistruths and non sequiturs.

or

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

nearly destroying Waterford United as simply as you have done

Seeriously deluded and offensive insult:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Is this the same way Stalin removed a lot of the petty infighting in USSR? Or Hitler removed a lot of the petty infighting in Germany?

Some fair points osarusan. Can't argue with you there. Will read the report in my own time. Certainly not just so I can post on a message board though.

**pineapple stu** · 19/09/2007, 9:57 PM

So you think the lies and non sequiturs in the Genesis Report are just rhetoric? You say this without actually having read the report, or even addressed the link which actually proves one of the white lies?

You think me querying your off-hand dismissal of Delaney's involvement in Drogheda's demise is rhetoric? You're very quick to dismiss things you don't agree with.

You think the attitude that he should go, but that we'll still probably get someone in just as bad, is small time attitude? History shows it's likely to be the case.

If you're offended about my other comment, I don't know how you get on in the real world. In fact, it stemmed from when myself and Bald Student (to whom I was replying) were at a communism museum in Prague at the weekend, and it was noted how many similarities there were between what was seen and the FAI.

Can you start giving more than one line arguments rather than just dismissing things without any explanation?

**Student Mullet** · 19/09/2007, 10:51 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

If you're offended about my other comment, I don't know how you get on in the real world. In fact, it stemmed from when myself and Bald Student (to whom I was replying) were at a communism museum in Prague at the weekend, and it was noted how many similarities there were between what was seen and the FAI.

I only got the reference now, thanks.

**DmanDmythDledge** · 19/09/2007, 11:06 PM

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. 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.

I'm almost certain this is true- Hiddink was approached for the job and said that he would take it, but only after the World Cup. Delaney didn't want to wait until then so appointed Stan.