word filter

[Dave Cooper please]

Don't know, I'm not assuming anything.
But in the absence of anything from O'Neill himself I can only go on what has come from General K and the board. Not even the O'Neill friendly media have come up with any other feasible reasons except for the funding issue.

Now, do you think the board are lying?

[Rip Van We Go Again]

I've always thought of The General as a man of integrity, nothing he or the board have done in the last 4 years makes me think otherwise, therefore I'm certain their version of events is the correct one.

We'll probably never get O'Neill's side of the story anyway, the pube headed mentalist always talks in riddles.

[cheltenhamlion]

Here is a question though. Why has MON been so quiet?

For someone who normally flaps his chops at the thought of any injustice, why has he not said anything in the press?

It's difficult to imagine there is any kind of gagging order as he upped sticks and pissed off of his own accord.

[ronshirt]

Here is a question though. Why has MON been so quiet?

For someone who normally flaps his chops at the thought of any injustice, why has he not said anything in the press?

He's too busy waxing his moustache and twirling his cape.

[pauliewalnuts]

Paulie - I'm not assuming anything, I'm saying I still don't know why he resigned. As far as I know there hasn't been anything from the board more explicit that Randy's statement that he and O'Neill ‘no longer shared a common view as to how to move forward".  It seems as though the signs of that were there for some time before he announced his resignation.

The General was pretty clear with his description of events - with the agreement on the way things were going to be going forward, that he'd signed up for it, and that at the end of the summer he left abruptly, with nothing having changed,  a couple of days after a meeting with the chairman in which he gave no indication of not being up for it.

That's what they told us - are you willing to accept that as the state of affairs?

I don't want to push the point too much, but it strikes me that if you're not going to take them at their word and believe it, you're effectively accusing them of misleading us.

Maybe I'm too naive or trusting with them, but I can't see anything they've done over the last four years that makes me think they would lie to us. Or treat the manager badly either, for what it's worth.

[Villa'Zawg]

I'm afraid you're going to have to help me out here because I didn't read the comments where it was explained why O'Neill had resigned, which is what I think we're talking about.

I read the general's comments at the time of O'Neill's departure, although I perhaps haven't read all of them. The ones I did read, I thought were well crafted comments that could lead people to certain conclusions if that was what they wanted, but they avoided being explicit in any way about the reason for O'Neill's departure. There's nothing wrong with that, it is what I would expect when there is potential scope for legal proceedings, which there often is in the period following the sudden departure of a key employee/s. I thought the comments were designed to tell you what he wanted you to think, rather than providing the information needed to make a personal judgement. Again, nothing wrong with that, if its what he chooses to do. A good example is your comment that O'Neill resigned a couple of days after a meeting with Randy. I may have  missed some info but I think what the general actually said was that they had spoken. You've drawn the inference that it was a meeting and presumably that they had an opportunity to discuss any substantive issues.

So, no I don't think he has told any lies or misled me in any way. If you think he has explained the reasons for the departure then please point me at the relevant comments. If you can't do that, then you may want to examine whether you have been misled.

[ronshirt]

I'm with Villadawg on this. The comments were so nebulous (from what I can recall and I too wouldn't mind being pointed to a place where I can refresh my memory) as to be capable of quite a few interpretations.

Have we been lied to? I don't know.

Have we been told the full unvarnished truth?  I don't think so.

Isn't there a resignation letter somewhere? If there is then the Board could release it and clear up all the confusion. Unless it contains embarrassing stuff of course.

Didn't MON read out his resignation letter to Faulkner in the latter's office? Or has my brain made that up for some reason?

[Dave Cooper please]

I'm with Villadawg on one thing, I too would love to know what made O'Neill walk out of the club only five days before the start of the season and just two days after a meeting with Lerner at which point everything seemed fine and geared towards the first match.

If it was something other than O'Neill being unhappy at the new budget arrangements then it's going to have to be a very big something for me to stop thinking that O'Neill is a bottling wanker.

[dave.woodhall]

I'd love to know what happened to change the situation whereby Randy Lerner flew to America only to turn back immediately once he knew O'Neill had walked out. Surely Randy wouldn't have left the country had he thought there was a chance the manager would be leaving. 

[ronshirt]

The received wisdom has it that it must have had something to do with transfers and/or budgets:

MON didn't want Ireland as part of the Milner deal.

MON wasn't going to get any of the Milner money.

MON wanted to give Ashley a pay rise because otherwise he would be off to Spurs.

MON was refused funds because fringe players hadn't been sold.

I'd just like to learn the truth. It's out there somewhere isn't it?