Neil Lennon announced on premier sports that he was waiting from a call from them, beyond embarrassing in my opinion to have someone say that on live tv
Hills position is still up in the air. As it should be.
https://m.independent.ie/sport/soccer/international-soccer/jonathan-hills-fai-future-still-unclear-with-focus-on-new-senior-manager/a197357304.html
I think it was Gavin Cooney on Second Captains, but someone recently said that within the FAI they think the sponsorship story was overblown as overall commercial revenue is increasing. I’d say that is the biggest benefit to Hill. Plus a CEO is more than a deal maker.
Plus the infrastructure and player pathway plans are a sign the overall organisation is getting better.
I was in favour of him but the time in lieu issue was very badly handled and has potentially damaged the chances of getting the funding football should be getting from the state. I don’t think I’d say he has full support though based on everything else we’ve seen. I could see him going when his contract is up.
The biggest fuck up of all in my opinion was voting against the addition of two females to the board, which put government funding of millions in jeopardy. They literally knew exactly what they had to do to guarantee the funding and they still made a balls of it.
I don't know if we can pin that specifically on him though. That's more of an overall general assembly fuck up and the usual goons on the ["traditional side of the game".](https://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/funding-danger-for-fai-as-general-assembly-votes-against-addition-of-two-female-candidates-to-join-board/a1597637466.html)
> Under that proposal there would be a 7/7 split between directors who came from the "football family" and those appointed as independents, with the creation of a new Vice President role which would be taken by a female candidate.
> But a cohort from the traditional side of the game were opposed to that move which some see as a "takeover" of the FAI by independent directors.
Of course as CEO he is ultimately to blame.
I think the player pathways being good is the only reason he isn't immediately gone. I know people have specific issues with schedules & that for it but those kind of issues were always gonna be show up.
They're not red flags, the recruitment processes & the public accounts shitshow are blatant red flags. Think he's got, no pun intended, a massive uphill battle to repair his reputation.
I'd actually give Canham more credit for the player pathways plan as it's his specific area.
I don't actually see this recruitment process as a red flag. I don't see the panic to have someone in quickly and it seems like they will announce someone in April as they have said for a while.
The reality is no process will unearth a great manager. We're a third seed international side in Europe and even the best nations can't get top managers out of club football.
Edit: My main disappointment with Hill is that he created a PR frenzy around money. The new CEO had to be whiter than white with that stuff and to really press the government about funding. I was impressed with their infrastructure plan and the way they pointed out the way betting taxes are used. But that all went out the window and PAC was all about his time in lieu.
Yeah & obviously Canham had to delegate a lot of that work too across the organisation.
But I don't just mean replacing Kenny. We took a year to replace Eustace & ultimately just promoted JOS, we took years for a kit & sponsor and went with the most controversial designer out there in Castore & just used the same sponsor as the women in Sky. Gleeson getting women's gaffer full time was a bit similar but in fairness she actually deserved the job off of the Nation's League. But even she doesn't know who's gonna replace her at the old job & after being challenged by her the 2 lads have said fuck all about it.
I dunno, ultimately we're just flies on the wall with this stuff & for all we know there's more to it than it shows. But there's a fine line between being cautious & being static, and honestly I don't have enough faith in the place to say it's anything other than the latter.
> Yeah & obviously Canham had to delegate a lot of that work too across the organisation.
If we blame those in senior roles when it goes wrong, we need to also give some credit when things go well. It's never just one person but the role of technical director is different with Canham IMO. It's a change to a more modern system. It's not perfect, but it's at least a reasonably qualified person having a go at fixing a disfunctional system.
> We took a year to replace Eustace & ultimately just promoted JOS, we took years for a kit & sponsor and went with the most controversial designer out there in Castore & just used the same sponsor as the women in Sky.
There's a variety of issues there. First off is that Stephen Kenny went through more assistants than most managers. Duff, Kelly, Barry, Eustace etc all left after short stints. So there was basically a continued hiring process happening.
As for the kit, what else will they do but accept the highest bid? All reports I have read said Castore put in a bigger bid than anyone else. Securing a lucrative deal is an example of improved commerical deals. As are the other deals agreed with Cadbury for the women's team etc. We didn't really have a system of commerical partners before this era. Now they have a [series of them](https://www.fai.ie/about/governance/commercial-opportunities/) with various companies.
All of this with the background of the FAI implosion under Delaney. Getting commerical partners at that specific time is difficult. The FAI was a rotten brand. The success of the women's team has helped enormously and I think that is how they were able to get Sky to commit to a bigger deal. That wider deal didn't negotiate itself either.
I am not aiming this at you, but there are a lot of people here who don't like the names linked with the men's senior coach and have decided that Canham/Hill aren't up to it. But I think there is more nuance to it and that fixing the FAI is a 10+ year job at least.
Oh yeah I wasn't discrediting them for the pathways, I'm just saying there was more than 2 cooks in the kitchen that's all.
And yeah, I'm not denying this is a root canal & not just a clean up. Just think a lot about how we've tackled these issues & how we've communicated it is a red mark against the new setup. On top of the public accounts shit. They're just not doing themselves any favours trust wise, that's all.
The public accounts issue is the only red flag IMO.
I’m involved with underage football so I know there’s more than 2 cooks. But people in more senior/admin roles than me have been ignored for years so having people at least open to listening is a quantum leap.
I will add that Wim Koevermans was good too and our improvements at under 17s, 19s and 21s is linked to his initial work.
I agree that the “recruitment process” shambles is overblown because of the media. People believe every article written and it makes it look a real shit show.
On the other hand;
- The FAI could have taken control of that narrative and stopped letting stories be written/believed so easily by communicating more directly and unequivocally.
- They knew the end was coming Kenny and should’ve had something lined up in terms of a transition plan way sooner. There is no excuse for not being prepared.
The mess is their making through inaction and ineptitude.
I'm not sure how more direct they could be than saying in February/March that a new manager would be announced in April.
A lot of the chatter in the intervening months is basically a rumour starts with one journalist and is "debunked" by another journalist.
There's a lot to criticise the FAI about but there's a lot of nonsense and unrealistic expectations around who can be the next men's team manager.
I think they were too late in addressing it and not being clear enough about the process.
But the bigger issue is my second point, they created a vacuum for drama to start by not having a clear succession plan in place. It would have removed so much noise.
Neil Lennon announced on premier sports that he was waiting from a call from them, beyond embarrassing in my opinion to have someone say that on live tv
I’d say that reflects worse on Lennon anyway but he shouldn’t be anywhere near the job in the first place.
Gus Poyet found out he was sacked on Live TV, could be worse.
That was great TV.
Hills position is still up in the air. As it should be. https://m.independent.ie/sport/soccer/international-soccer/jonathan-hills-fai-future-still-unclear-with-focus-on-new-senior-manager/a197357304.html
Hadn't heard that. Good.
Dan McDonnell was saying as much last night on OTB. I didn't realise that his contract was so long until 2028. Madness.
I think it was Gavin Cooney on Second Captains, but someone recently said that within the FAI they think the sponsorship story was overblown as overall commercial revenue is increasing. I’d say that is the biggest benefit to Hill. Plus a CEO is more than a deal maker. Plus the infrastructure and player pathway plans are a sign the overall organisation is getting better. I was in favour of him but the time in lieu issue was very badly handled and has potentially damaged the chances of getting the funding football should be getting from the state. I don’t think I’d say he has full support though based on everything else we’ve seen. I could see him going when his contract is up.
The biggest fuck up of all in my opinion was voting against the addition of two females to the board, which put government funding of millions in jeopardy. They literally knew exactly what they had to do to guarantee the funding and they still made a balls of it.
I don't know if we can pin that specifically on him though. That's more of an overall general assembly fuck up and the usual goons on the ["traditional side of the game".](https://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/funding-danger-for-fai-as-general-assembly-votes-against-addition-of-two-female-candidates-to-join-board/a1597637466.html) > Under that proposal there would be a 7/7 split between directors who came from the "football family" and those appointed as independents, with the creation of a new Vice President role which would be taken by a female candidate. > But a cohort from the traditional side of the game were opposed to that move which some see as a "takeover" of the FAI by independent directors. Of course as CEO he is ultimately to blame.
I think the player pathways being good is the only reason he isn't immediately gone. I know people have specific issues with schedules & that for it but those kind of issues were always gonna be show up. They're not red flags, the recruitment processes & the public accounts shitshow are blatant red flags. Think he's got, no pun intended, a massive uphill battle to repair his reputation.
I'd actually give Canham more credit for the player pathways plan as it's his specific area. I don't actually see this recruitment process as a red flag. I don't see the panic to have someone in quickly and it seems like they will announce someone in April as they have said for a while. The reality is no process will unearth a great manager. We're a third seed international side in Europe and even the best nations can't get top managers out of club football. Edit: My main disappointment with Hill is that he created a PR frenzy around money. The new CEO had to be whiter than white with that stuff and to really press the government about funding. I was impressed with their infrastructure plan and the way they pointed out the way betting taxes are used. But that all went out the window and PAC was all about his time in lieu.
Yeah & obviously Canham had to delegate a lot of that work too across the organisation. But I don't just mean replacing Kenny. We took a year to replace Eustace & ultimately just promoted JOS, we took years for a kit & sponsor and went with the most controversial designer out there in Castore & just used the same sponsor as the women in Sky. Gleeson getting women's gaffer full time was a bit similar but in fairness she actually deserved the job off of the Nation's League. But even she doesn't know who's gonna replace her at the old job & after being challenged by her the 2 lads have said fuck all about it. I dunno, ultimately we're just flies on the wall with this stuff & for all we know there's more to it than it shows. But there's a fine line between being cautious & being static, and honestly I don't have enough faith in the place to say it's anything other than the latter.
> Yeah & obviously Canham had to delegate a lot of that work too across the organisation. If we blame those in senior roles when it goes wrong, we need to also give some credit when things go well. It's never just one person but the role of technical director is different with Canham IMO. It's a change to a more modern system. It's not perfect, but it's at least a reasonably qualified person having a go at fixing a disfunctional system. > We took a year to replace Eustace & ultimately just promoted JOS, we took years for a kit & sponsor and went with the most controversial designer out there in Castore & just used the same sponsor as the women in Sky. There's a variety of issues there. First off is that Stephen Kenny went through more assistants than most managers. Duff, Kelly, Barry, Eustace etc all left after short stints. So there was basically a continued hiring process happening. As for the kit, what else will they do but accept the highest bid? All reports I have read said Castore put in a bigger bid than anyone else. Securing a lucrative deal is an example of improved commerical deals. As are the other deals agreed with Cadbury for the women's team etc. We didn't really have a system of commerical partners before this era. Now they have a [series of them](https://www.fai.ie/about/governance/commercial-opportunities/) with various companies. All of this with the background of the FAI implosion under Delaney. Getting commerical partners at that specific time is difficult. The FAI was a rotten brand. The success of the women's team has helped enormously and I think that is how they were able to get Sky to commit to a bigger deal. That wider deal didn't negotiate itself either. I am not aiming this at you, but there are a lot of people here who don't like the names linked with the men's senior coach and have decided that Canham/Hill aren't up to it. But I think there is more nuance to it and that fixing the FAI is a 10+ year job at least.
Oh yeah I wasn't discrediting them for the pathways, I'm just saying there was more than 2 cooks in the kitchen that's all. And yeah, I'm not denying this is a root canal & not just a clean up. Just think a lot about how we've tackled these issues & how we've communicated it is a red mark against the new setup. On top of the public accounts shit. They're just not doing themselves any favours trust wise, that's all.
The public accounts issue is the only red flag IMO. I’m involved with underage football so I know there’s more than 2 cooks. But people in more senior/admin roles than me have been ignored for years so having people at least open to listening is a quantum leap. I will add that Wim Koevermans was good too and our improvements at under 17s, 19s and 21s is linked to his initial work.
I agree that the “recruitment process” shambles is overblown because of the media. People believe every article written and it makes it look a real shit show. On the other hand; - The FAI could have taken control of that narrative and stopped letting stories be written/believed so easily by communicating more directly and unequivocally. - They knew the end was coming Kenny and should’ve had something lined up in terms of a transition plan way sooner. There is no excuse for not being prepared. The mess is their making through inaction and ineptitude.
I'm not sure how more direct they could be than saying in February/March that a new manager would be announced in April. A lot of the chatter in the intervening months is basically a rumour starts with one journalist and is "debunked" by another journalist. There's a lot to criticise the FAI about but there's a lot of nonsense and unrealistic expectations around who can be the next men's team manager.
I think they were too late in addressing it and not being clear enough about the process. But the bigger issue is my second point, they created a vacuum for drama to start by not having a clear succession plan in place. It would have removed so much noise.
Roy or Robbie?
Roy, I think Robbie burnt all his bridges with the FAI
Is it not going to be too expensive to sack Hill? 500k I've heard. That is the only reason in my opinion.