Off The Ball Official Thread <Mod Note - Post #1, #533, #6651>

Mr. Arkadin

It would be no harm for Giles to turn up and actually earn his money for a change. A legend of Irish football, no doubt about that, but as a pundit/analyst he's hopelessly out of date. He spouts the same old anecdotes and rubbish every time. Luckily for him there's always someone, be it Dunphy or the Off The Ball crew, to lick his hole.

BPKS

Abel Ruiz wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uJ3hW5gA1k

Yes but I think more question marks have been raised since - like the payment of over €300k for the fella who came up with the idea of the John Giles foundation.

When my young fella was looking for sponsorship for doing these walks a few years back, I didnt realise that the first €300k raised by the foundation would be required to make this payment.

jeremyj1968

I wonder is Giles on tonight?

u140acro3xs7dm

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

I wonder is Giles on tonight?

He's on just after 9.

jeremyj1968

Giselle Future Blouse wrote: »

He's on just after 9.

Thanks you saved me having to endure Gary Breen.

jeremyj1968

Giles just read a prepared statement and said that he has been advised to say nothing further. Said that he will come in after it has all been cleared up and answer whatever questions that they have.

Same as JD did when he was in front of the Dáil representatives. ;-)

Beechwoodspark

Giles statement was pretty damn strange

Ol' Donie

I have a serious sense of deja vu here.

I could have sworn I heard Giles talking to one of the not Ger or Joe ones before about getting a bunch of cash from the FAI for doing f*ck all.

Was this like that?

peadar76

I'd have sympathy for Giles. He's an old man, and not very articulate at the best of times. If he has done something wrong and is corrupt,  well then he deserves to be called out. But it is probably more likely that he has put his name to something but has little to no involvement in how it's run.

NIMAN

peadar76 wrote: »

I'd have sympathy for Giles. He's an old man, and not very articulate at the best of times. If he has done something wrong and is corrupt,  well then he deserves to be called out. But it is probably more likely that he has put his name to something but has little to no involvement in how it's run.

All the more reason he should tell us what he knows and distance himself from the foundation asap

Usually prepared statements are read out by people with things to hide.

u140acro3xs7dm

NIMAN wrote: »

All the more reason he should tell us what he knows and distance himself from the foundation asap

Usually prepared statements are read out by people with things to hide.

Or people that have been threatened by the FAI's legal people.

Ahwell

Giselle Future Blouse wrote: »

Or people that have been threatened by the FAI's legal people.

No, his own legal people are taking an action against The Times. He claims there were inaccuracies in the article, which on the face of it would be easy to prove. He says he will answer questions when the legal situation is resolved. It's all perfectly understandable under the circumstances.

jeremyj1968

Gilroy on his soap boxing this morning about the Giles story. Suggests the fact that such a great man as Giles has been forced to read a statement to defend himself shows just how badly run the organisation has been.

He should have just stayed out of it and wait for Giles to answer the questions.

Tell me how

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

Gilroy on his soap boxing this morning about the Giles story. Suggests the fact that such a great man as Giles has been forced to read a statement to defend himself shows just how badly run the organisation has been.

He should have just stayed out of it and wait for Giles to answer the questions.

Maybe, but, if he had said nothing, they'd probably be accused of keeping their head in the sand because of Giles working with them.

Will we ever know the full truth? A lot of former professionals had been very free with their praise of Delaney in the past, given what we know now, you can't help but wonder what motivated that praise.

Did he actually do anything with the interest of football development in mind?

Abel Ruiz

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Giles statement was pretty damn strange

No it wasnt. His solicitor told him to say that.
How about waiting until we know before trying to put the knife in.

Why do you hate him? Because he is a dub?

jeremyj1968

Tell me how wrote: »

Maybe, but, if he had said nothing, they'd probably be accused of keeping their head in the sand because of Giles working with them.

Giles said that he wasn't prepared to make a statement on the thing, so I think it would have been better not to take sides or set a narrative.

I did feel a bit sorry for Giles, he's not getting any younger and I think it's taking a bit of a toll on him. Sounded pretty dejected.

Murdoc90

It's pretty clear Giles has put his name to something he was misled over. Careless yes, maybe too naive. Don't think we should be wielding pitchforks until the facts come out. I think if it was up to John he'd have cleared it all last night. I'm not his biggest fan as a pundit but he does come across as honest and up front as the day is long.

expectationlost

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

Gilroy on his soap boxing this morning about the Giles story. Suggests the fact that such a great man as Giles has been forced to read a statement to defend himself shows just how badly run the organisation has been.

He should have just stayed out of it and wait for Giles to answer the questions.

confused what show are you talking about ? https://www.offtheball.com/podcasts/otb-am

jeremyj1968

expectationlost wrote: »

confused what show are you talking about ? https://www.offtheball.com/podcasts/otb-am

Yeah he said it on the YouTube morning show. Gilroy wasn't in studio last night when the interview / statement took place. So this was his first opportunity to get his spoke in.

jeremyj1968

Murdoc90 wrote: »

It's pretty clear Giles has put his name to something he was misled over. Careless yes, maybe too naive.

Yeah this is my reading of it too. But I think at this point the association with the FAI may be too toxic for the foundation to keeping running as it is. John said last night that he hopes to continue the good work that the foundation is doing. But I think as long as the association with the FAI is there, he is only one step away from the next "big story" in the Sunday papers.

Murdoc90

Murdoc90 wrote: »

It's pretty clear Giles has put his name to something he was misled over. Careless yes, maybe too naive. Don't think we should be wielding pitchforks until the facts come out. I think if it was up to John he'd have cleared it all last night. I'm not his biggest fan as a pundit but he does come across as honest and up front as the day is long.

I don't know whether I agree with you or not. I'd like to agree, but being a nice guy, and having your heart in the right place, doesn't excuse you from your responsibility as the trustee or chairperson. That responsibility is towards upholding the law, certainly, but also to the donors -- many of them kids; and thereafter to other charities, that the designation of being a charity is not sullied or spoiled by unscrupulous practices.

It's a serious responsibility. It should be taken seriously. If Giles didn't know about the payments, he needs to clarify why he didn't.

Dots1982

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I don't know whether I agree with you or not. I'd like to agree, but being a nice guy, and having your heart in the right place, doesn't excuse you from your responsibility as the trustee or chairperson. That responsibility is towards upholding the law, certainly, but also to the donors -- many of them kids; and thereafter to other charities, that the designation of being a charity is not sullied or spoiled by unscrupulous practices.

It's a serious responsibility. It should be taken seriously. If Giles didn't know about the payments, he needs to clarify why he didn't.

Giles should defend himself against any accusations that have been leveled against him. What he is being accused of (to my knowledge) is saying that the FAI got 10 million from UEFA for the walk of dreams idea. He has refuted this as a lie so he has defended himself against those allegations.

Can anybody help me with what else exactly he is being accused of?

Or is that about it and there is a desire from some to act as fearless Paul Kimmage types while chasing a story that doesn’t exist...

expectationlost

Dots1982 wrote: »

Giles should defend himself against any accusations that have been leveled against him. What he is being accused of (to my knowledge) is saying that the FAI got 10 million from UEFA for the walk of dreams idea. He has refuted this as a lie so he has defended himself against those allegations.

Can anybody help me with what else exactly he is being accused of?

he is not being accused of anything, the ST didn't accuse him anything but refusing to talk to them, any payments to Martin from FAI funds probably exist entirely outside the Foundation https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fai-paid-john-giles-s-pal-300-000-for-foundation-and-walk-idea-t8fcvf2xc The ST reported things that Martin said and things written in FAI minutes

Beechwoodspark

Abel Ruiz wrote: »

No it wasnt. His solicitor told him to say that.
How about waiting until we know before trying to put the knife in.

Why do you hate him? Because he is a dub?

I don’t hate him whatsoever. I listen to his contributions on otb regularly. Like a lot of ppl have said, for years he was one of the best football analysts in the media.

It’s very odd that the FAI supposedly paid this acquaintance of his 5 k a month over a period of time.

jeremyj1968

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

It’s very odd that the FAI supposedly paid this acquaintance of his 5 k a month over a period of time.

*ahem* .. "I was friends with the former League Of Ireland player, Con Martin, but we had a serious falling out a number of years ago and we are no longer friends". :pac:



note: that's paraphrased but gives the jist of what John himself said in his statement.

expectationlost

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

*ahem* .. "I was friends with the former League Of Ireland player, Con Martin, but we had a serious falling out a number of years ago and we are no longer friends". :pac:



note: that's paraphrased but gives the jist of what John himself said in his statement.

yes he did say that but when was it before or after these payments started? (or is this what the falling out was about? I suspect it is)

but they were friends for a very long time and Giles wouldn't speak to the reporters to clarify the current status and gives them a chance to report that.

Con Martin Sr was friends with Giles' father https://books.google.ie/books?id=lUNt5ZU5LFYC&pg=PA1948-IA4&lpg=PA1948-IA4&dq=%22con+martin%22+john+%22giles%22+-%22walk+of+dreams%22&source=bl&ots=GHukMjKUAh&sig=ACfU3U0coLz2iJvOl7L1cQ90tAQKdsc5lg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi_xMHO1aPkAhXHasAKHc_bBn04ChDoATAHegQICRAB Giles bought Mick Martin (Con Sr's son) while managing West Brom https://books.google.ie/books?id=lUNt5ZU5LFYC&pg=PT110&dq=%22john+giles%22+%22mick+martin%22+20,000&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiV3sPvma3kAhWLOcAKHWyhBocQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=%22john%20giles%22%20%22mick%20martin%22%2020%2C000&f=false John Giles has stayed at Con Martin Jr house https://www.independent.ie/life/home-garden/homes/stunning-skerries-home-offers-dual-views-of-the-sea-for-1-2m-36088331.html (probably a long time ago)

Con Martin Jr was involved in arranging golf classics for the Irish Retired International Players Trust Fund that Giles appeared at https://www.independent.ie/sport/golf/giles-golf-day-to-aid-trust-fund-for-exinternational-footballers-25982600.html they are both golfers and both lived in north Dublin...

expectationlost

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

Yeah he said it on the YouTube morning show. Gilroy wasn't in studio last night when the interview / statement took place. So this was his first opportunity to get his spoke in.

where is it? does it get released? https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfGDs3EEl0RHUwgdEGeCL_A/videos

Ahwell

expectationlost wrote: »

where is it? does it get released? https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfGDs3EEl0RHUwgdEGeCL_A/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBgMk7ONyls&t=6541s

The statement 1:49:00

Gilroy's comment 1:51:48

Dots1982

Dots1982 wrote: »

Giles should defend himself against any accusations that have been leveled against him. What he is being accused of (to my knowledge) is saying that the FAI got 10 million from UEFA for the walk of dreams idea. He has refuted this as a lie so he has defended himself against those allegations.

Can anybody help me with what else exactly he is being accused of?

Or is that about it and there is a desire from some to act as fearless Paul Kimmage types while chasing a story that doesn’t exist...

There is an important difference between an accusation and a criticism. An accusation is a claim of wrongdoing, a criticism is an expression of disapproval of an action, even if that action is perfectly legal.

If someone was in receipt of significant sums of money for work undertaken for the John Giles Foundation, which sum appears on its face to be disproportionate, then one would expect the Foundation -- its trustees and chairperson -- to be aware of this. They should make themselves aware of all sources of revenue as well as conflicts of interest.

Everyone working at senior level of a charitable organisation should be providing financial details which might disclose a conflict of interest. It is a legal requirement that all charities manage such conflicts appropriately.

siblers

Is there a podcast of the roadshow with Neville? Can't see anything on Podcast Republic