Documents released to The Irish Times under the Freedom of Information Act suggest it will be difficult for the main participants in the Gate-Arts Council rift to put these trying events behind them.
Some of the opinions expressed are sufficiently raw for the council to decline to release them. But the correspondence which has been released gives a sense of a highly fraught relationship.
For example, an e-mail between two Arts Council officials on May 11th describes the angry reaction of Gate director Michael Colgan to their grant offer as "histrionics".
Letters from him to the council on the same subject are equally trenchant. One sent to council director Ms Patricia Quinn on May 21st, pulls no punches: "It is indeed a sorry day for the Gate that this council should have been so determined to undervalue its true worth and to put the theatre in a more precarious situation than it has faced for over 40 years."
While this reaction concerns the annual grant for the Gate, the documents also disclose differences over the Gate's role and performance.
A council memo from early May describes the theatre's programme as "a mix of literary adaptations, classics and new text-based theatre". The programme is "solid, traditional" and has good production values.
But crucially it adds that it is "neither adventurous nor groundbreaking" and in 2000 "there was only one new piece of contemporary writing, maintaining a conservative trend that has emerged in the company in recent years".
It also says the Gate tours abroad for "avowedly selfish reasons". A section of this document also concerns the Gate's board and governance.
The document says there are "valid questions" to be asked about three issues in this regard:
* The low turnover in board membership at the Gate.
* The suitability of Michael Colgan sitting on the Gate's board while also acting as chief executive.
* The level of detail provided about the theatre's programme and financial situation.
The document states: "It is recommended that the Gate be asked to address these questions and provide proposals or responses in the context of discussions about any future funding relationships with the council."
Mr Colgan for his part constantly reminds the council of the grave financial situation it has plunged the theatre into.
After a meeting on May 21st he writes to Ms Quinn outlining his dissatisfaction with the council's decision to award the theatre a £531,600 grant.
"It is one thing to accept that the Arts Council has had a radical rethink as to how it would like to do business in the future, but it seemed all too clear from the meeting that this Arts Council has also had a radical rethink as to the value of the Gate."
He says the sum will "fall short of our needs to trade throughout 2001" and to continue to trade in 2001 on that basis could "constitute reckless behaviour".
Minutes from a meeting between Mr Colgan and the council of May 17th reveal that various initiatives were considered to get the Gate out of this financial hole.
Mr Colgan suggested matinees be staged and a revival of A Christmas Carol this year might increase income. He also asked if the £532,000 grant would still be payable if the theatre closed for two to three months after the Dublin Film Festival. Ms Quinn said the Gate would have to trade for the full year.
Mr Colgan says the theatre now faces a grim future. In his final letter in the documents released - of May 25th - he states that "closure is now inevitable."