Bees, that is a completely disinegenious, BS claim you are making. That exchange was 5-7 days ago. Everything I said, I meant -- including that resources would not be an inhibiting factor for a HC, that we didn't have to "settle" for a cheaper in-house coach because we couldn't afford anybody else [which is what I characterized as old guard logic], and that an agreement was in place with Hodgson's representation behind the scenes, which signified that NIL / revenue share wasn't an obstacle. Time will tell whether I am right about that, but I stand by that info I reported.
And to be 100% clear, everything I edited was edited a week ago, in real time, DURING OUR EXCHANGE. If you want to double check anything, go double check that. I didn't go back and change anything outside of the timeframe where we were having those discussions. I edit my posts all the time, to clean up language or make editorial change. That's all I did. 5 edits could just be about punctuation changes in a long post, or cleaning up messy phrasing.
I don't know what you are claiming I "softened." And also, I look back on those posts, and it seems like a boatload of posters seemed to agree with me, and virtually none agreed with you.
So...
You seem to be pedanticlly focused on whether a coaching candidate would ask about resources. Duh. My point was that resources were not a systemic issue. Now, if Lally somehow takes his ball and goes home due to recent developments [i.e., the AD hire not favoring his preferred candidate], that might change. But that's a recent development, and the notion that I went back and made a bunch of changes to past posts to alter my original point is patently false.