LIKE most of the matches in Euro 96, the Bord na Mona saga seems destined to go to extra time and penalties. Most people might have thought it would all be over by yesterday, but it isn't yet. In what has turned into the most extraordinarily drawn out saga, questions now surround not only Dr O'Connor's package and how it was arrived out but also how the whole affair has developed, why it has taken so long and why so much of it has been played out through the media.

So far as we know them the issues are simple enough. The board sought and received a report on Dr Eddie O'Connor's remuneration package. It concluded first that his package "appeared" to breach Government guidelines and in another marathon meeting on Thursday hardened this to a view that the guidelines had definitely been breached. Dr O'Connor has disputed this and pointed to an agreement he had with the former chairman, Mr Brendan Halligan.

Why it has taken so long to arrive at this point is difficult to understand. What is clear is that the effect of all the delay has been damaging to the company, the board and to Dr O'Connor. Clearly, management time over the past 11 weeks has gone almost entirely into dealing with the issue, rather than running the Company. The board has looked indecisive and is now clearly divided. And, as the affair has gone on, various pieces of information damaging to Dr O'Connor have leaked out.

Recent reports have said that the Revenue Commissioners are seeking tax owed on £200,000 of payments however, this demand is understood to go far beyond Dr O'Connor's package.

In a statement early yesterday morning, he said that Mr Dineen had come into Bord na Mona with an agenda to cut costs and return the company to its ore business. Dr O'Connor, on the other hand, has championed diversification.

There are legitimate questions about his package and about the internal controls and management at the company. But these could surely have been dealt with in a more expeditious manner.

Why the board did not vote on Dr O'Connor's position yesterday is not clear. It was deeply divided and the chairman and the Minister may have feared that the board would not have voted against Dr O'Connor.

Deferring the vote may also allow time to seek a settlement package before Mr Lowry brings the issue to Cabinet. There have been contacts between Dr O'Connor's legal advisers and the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications on a settlement, but no serious negotiations are believed to have taken place.

Sources close to Dr O'Connor say that if he is to leave he will want to do so in a way which safeguards his reputation. Mr Lowry, meanwhile, faces a Cabinet where views on the issue are understood to be divided.

It is in both sides interests to agree some kind of settlement. But feeling are running so high, that striking such a deal will not be easy.