Ok the first point regarding the veracity of his story:
Sure, you don't have to believe him. That's a question for everyone who's interested to decide. I'm inclined to believe him personally. You think he'd lie about what transpired in a story of national significance? This could turn into a huge scandal if so. I take Maldini's reputation and word any day over Malagò (who even claims Mancini is not his friend). Looking further back, Gerry too, what a trustworthy and upstanding owner we have. Sure, let's take his side over Maldini's any day.
Did Maldini say the split wasn't consensual? Sounds like Malagò just left out a ton of details that don't make him look bad. Why else would Maldini quit? Like I said at some point when it happened, the trust was broken and the relationship became untenable.
Maybe he should be airing out the dirty laundry anyways. Isn't Italian football a total disaster? Sounds like he was trying to make change and the old guard came in to revert everything back. At least people in Italy who care about football deserve to know this. Who cares about working relationships in this context. The issue is more important than a working relationship with the Malagò.
Whether you think his interviews post-Milan were appropriate at all is another story, but in this case he seems totally justified.
I think you're arguing against a point I'm not really making. I'm actually inclined to believe Maldini too.
I literally said I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't need to believe Malagò, Cardinale or anyone else instead in order to question Maldini's way of handling these situations tho.
And no, Malagò didn't say the split wasn't consensual. Quite the opposite. He called it consensual, said they had a calm conversation and openly took responsibility for the decision that ultimately led to the split. That doesn't mean he told us every detail or that Maldini was wrong to walk away. Hell chances are Maldini's version is 100% accurate and Malagò completely fucked it up (while for the sake of
your argument I'm simply gonna ignore Maldinis back-up plan for Guardiola was freaking Pirlo paired with De Rossi and Grosso!!). But that's not my point.
My point is what happens afterwards.
You say "who cares about working relationships in this context", but for an SD or TD I
actually care quite a lot. Managing relationships, disagreements and compromises with owners, coaches, agents, players and other executives is a pretty fundamental part of that job. You won't always get the autonomy you were promised, you won't always get your first choice and people above you will sometimes make decisions you strongly disagree with. If every fundamental disagreement ends with you walking away and then explaining publicly who fucked you over, I think it's fair to wonder whether compromise is one of your strengths.
And yes, Italian football desperately needs change. Maybe Maldini was absolutely right about the direction he wanted to take. But wanting change doesn't automatically make your way of handling conflict beyond criticism, does it.
That's really all I'm saying. This isn't "Malagò good, Maldini bad" any more than my criticism of his Milan exit was "Cardinale good, Maldini bad". I can think Malagò is a dinosaur, Cardinale handled Maldini's dismissal disgracefully and still think Maldini himself has a tendency to burn bridges when working relationships break down. Those things can all be true at the same time. Why is this so difficult to understand, let alone accept?
