That last line is really the key issue, the rest is just people (i,e, us) disagreeing over management technique and selection. Some of the stuff, like the Sutcliffe thing, we just don't know enough about. We might have all of one side of the story, or a little of both sides but very few would have all of both sides. I would maintain it is up to the manager to manage the situation so that this type of thing does not occur - but that argument has been to death now on either side now I think.
I do agree with DonHurley1 in the respect due for some of the guys that left the panel, I would be unhappy with how a lot of that was managed. This is not a professional sports team, the rules and ethos are different.
But I think we are in a new situation now and the old arguments are immaterial. I can't for a minute thing that we will go into 2017 without the vast majority on board. How that happens I don't know, but I think it will. What happened in 2016 was unfortunate, but it is gone now.
I thought Cunningham had a fairly decent 2015 and a so so 2016. I would defer to him tactically because I assume he knows more then most people in the country, not alone me. But the responsibility is getting greater - within the next few years we are going to have the possibility of having a senior team made up of guys from the seniors, u21s and minors - guys like Sutcliffe, Kelly, Rushe, Barrett, Bennett, C Boland, McBride, O Donnell, Madden, Conroy, Burke, McGurk, O Sullivan - these are all guys who are possibly one of the best in their position in the country (at their age). When they all do start to come through, and it will be relatively quickly, the old arguments that being a top 6 team is good enough (an argument I have often made), will no longer hold. They will be capable of more.