AGM 2015

phnompenhchess

Rafael Green Violist wrote: »

I'm a director of a charity and we get our accounts audited yearly. Doesn't cost a whole lot but then our secretary has over 40 years of management consultancy and accounting behind him and knows what needs to be provided to the auditor.

Exactly this. Even if it only costs 2 grand, which you would be doing very well to get, that's 10% of spendable income gone. Then you have a year where the Treasurer fails to get his act together (I recall at least three of these this decade) and suddenly your audit bill trebles.

And that's on top of other fines an incompetent executive running a company will amass. Company admin filings, tax filings, it gets scary to even think about it.

cdeb

I presume it means it's a matter for individual tournaments rather than the ICU.

The point on incorporation was raised in light of the Aontas report and a comment on the official icu site about potential mental health issues with named individuals. The incoming committee is to investigate where the ICU stands if it gets sued over stuff like this.

phnompenhchess

chesstity wrote: »

So does all this mean that Mirza will be banned from every ICU competition or are the new Exec going to reconcile with him?

I missed the sanction that was put on Mirza by the ICU. Was he not banned for life for his actions (which he admitted to)?

chesstity

Tychoo wrote: »

I think the onus is on him to be a good boy. There's an old saying "give him enough rope and he'll ...." Well you know the rest.

That's no answer to my question. Mr Orr apparently was taken out using improper protocols. Well by the same standard so was Mirza. Has he not already served his punishment. Can there not be forgiveness in this situation by the new and fresh board who want to prove all of their promises to the members they made promises to ?

uck51js9zml2yt

DmanDmythDledge wrote: »

I'm sure the new executive will be willing to work with and reconcile anyone who is involved with Irish chess as required and in a constructive manner. It may not have been the intention of the above posts to suggest that they won't but the tone of the posts may (unintentionally) suggest that.

As has been said my previous posters in the last week an organisation such as the ICU should have everyone working together and I have confidence that the new executive will facilitate that and work with anybody who has a contribution to make.

There was no intention, just interest in light of his questionable report (based on other peoples commentrs) and apparent failure to justify it.

Thanks for the rolling commentary cdeb.

DmanDmythDledge

phnompenhchess wrote: »

Exactly this. Even if it only costs 2 grand, which you would be doing very well to get, that's 10% of spendable income gone. Then you have a year where the Treasurer fails to get his act together (I recall at least three of these this decade) and suddenly your audit bill trebles.

And that's on top of other fines an incompetent executive running a company will amass. Company admin filings, tax filings, it gets scary to even think about it.

I don't think what you are saying is accurate. Audit fees are agreed in advance so unless there is somebody in charge who doesn't have a notion what they are doing the information would be provided to the auditors without an overrun. I'm sure there's plenty of people in Irish chess who would act voluntarily if required in such a capacity.

It also should be noted (in light of your post) that there is no requirement for company admin filings (no need to submit accounts to CRO) or any requirement to register for VAT or any other taxes.

cdeb

phnompenhchess wrote: »

I missed the sanction that was put on Mirza by the ICU. Was he not banned for life for his actions (which he admitted to)?

No, he was banned for three years I think. Maybe some of it was suspended too.

Don't really agree with your comment on the treasurer btw. He put himself forward for election but then resigned rather than work with another team. I don't think that's how the ICU exec should work. You go forward to do a role, not work with certain people.

Kasp53

So can we can all get back to normal now? Whatever normal was pre the out going Exec.

Sparks

phnompenhchess wrote: »

Really bad idea.

What almost every other sport in Ireland has found is the opposite - we've seen far more good than bad emerge from the seperate legal identity of the NGB and the enforced standards on it in terms of holding AGMs, operating to its constitution instead of ignoring it, preparing timely reports on the finances and operations of the NGB, and the legal avenues incorporation provides to the members to hold the board to its own rules.

I think this year's been a pretty good demonstration of why those things are necessary and why having a higher authority than the board (in this case the Companies Act) enforcing them is a good thing.


(Oh, and no, you don't have to have your financial record audited if you incorporate - that only becomes mandatory when you get grants from the Irish Sports Council, and it's not law, it's one of their conditions of the grant).

edit: About that exemption, this is from the Chartered Accountants Ireland notes on incorporation:

Generally, a private limited company that is not a parent or subsidiary may claim an audit exemption if all of the following conditions are satisfied in both the financial year and the year immediately preceding that year:
• Turnover must not exceed €8.8m.
• The balance sheet total is less than €4.4m.
• Average employees must not exceed 50.
• Annual returns must be filed on time.

The decision that the company will avail of the exemption to audit must be made and recorded before the end of the financial year in which the exemption is to be availed of. The audit exemption does not grant a company any exemption from the requirement to prepare a full statutory set of accounts that give a ‘true and fair’ view of the state of affairs of the company and to lay those accounts before the AGM of the company, nor does it grant a company any exemption from the requirement to annex accounts in the format laid down by the Companies Acts 1963-2013 to its annual return that is filed in the CRO (as outlined on page 12 – What are the filing requirements for my company?) – the only exemption granted is from having them audited.

I think it's pretty clear that the ICU meets all those criteria for the exemption and will until and unless it qualifies for ICU funding.

Kasp53

So can we can all get back to normal now? Whatever normal was pre the out going Exec. Just want to continue to play chess at well run tournaments and in my club.

DmanDmythDledge

Sparks wrote: »

(Oh, and no, you don't have to have your financial record audited if you incorporate - that only becomes mandatory when you get grants from the Irish Sports Council, and it's not law, it's one of their conditions of the grant).

I still think having a third party prepare non-audited financial statements should be done in interest of transparency even if not legally/conditionally required.

Sparks, you would seem to be best placed to ask this question to - am I right in saying that if the ICU was incorporated two trustees would have to be appointed to effectively be the "owners" of the organisation from a legal perspective?

phnompenhchess

DmanDmythDledge wrote: »

I don't think what you are saying is accurate. Audit fees are agreed in advance so unless there is somebody in charge who doesn't have a notion what they are doing the information would be provided to the auditors without an overrun. I'm sure there's plenty of people in Irish chess who would act voluntarily if required in such a capacity.

It also should be noted (in light of your post) that there is no requirement for company admin filings (no need to submit accounts to CRO) or any requirement to register for VAT or any other taxes.

I'm only an accountant who has been Treasurer if the ICU - what would I know. What precisely do you think an auditor would do if you handed him incomplete accounts (and I've seen some shockers from the ICU) and ask for sign off. Be really nice and fix things up for free? Maybe on another planet. As regards lots of qualified people who play chess, yes sure, but where are they year in year out.

Not sure what you are 'noting' when you say there are no company admin tasks with a limited company. How exactly do you think the directors get changed each year after new ones get voted in? It's not by magic. Or maybe in your world we'll find some happy souls to put themselves on the line as directors whilst others run the show.

Sparks

DmanDmythDledge wrote: »

I still think having a third party prepare non-audited financial statements should be done in interest of transparency even if not legally/conditionally required.

It's a nice backstop, but it's not cheap. You really are talking somewhere around 2k or so. Cdeb?

Sparks, you would seem to be best placed to ask this question to - am I right in saying that if the ICU was incorporated two trustees would have to be appointed to effectively be the "owners" of the organisation from a legal perspective?

No, it doesn't quite work that way. Two people file the paperwork with the CRO (usually the secretary and the chair countersigning) but the ICU would actually become its own legal entity at that point and all its assets would be owned by it, so to speak. The board (what we now call the executive) would be legally stewards of those assets, not owners. The board cannot decide to sell up and move on tomorrow in a limited company. In an unincorporated association like the ICU is today, well, if the previous executive had decided on Friday to sell off everything the ICU owned at a loss and donate everything else to charity, that would probably have been completely legal (you'd get a case put more than likely but unincorporated associations are not bound to operate by their own rules, so I don't think it would have succeeded).

Again, that's a nice backstop to have in contentious times.

Sparks

phnompenhchess wrote: »

I'm only an accountant who has been Treasurer if the ICU - what would I know. What precisely do you think an auditor would do if you handed him incomplete accounts (and I've seen some shockers from the ICU) and ask for sign off. Be really nice and fix things up for free? Maybe on another planet. As regards lots of qualified people who play chess, yes sure, but where are they year in year out.

You are completely correct - auditing accounts is a professional service that costs money. Cdeb would know more, but we were paying about 2k or so for that annually.

But the ICU would be exempt from the requirement to have audited accounts.

So it's a non-issue for now. Get ICU recognition and grants and it'll be different; but we're not there yet.

Not sure what you are 'noting' when you say there are no company admin tasks with a limited company. How exactly do you think the directors get changed each year after new ones get voted in? It's not by magic. Or maybe in your world we'll find some happy souls to put themselves on the line as directors whilst others run the show.

Actually, having done this for a few years, there no more effort required to run an NGB properly as an incorporated body than there is as an unincorporated association. You still do the reports, you still hold an AGM - basically, if you adhere to the rules when running the ICU today, you're doing everything required to run it as an incorporated body, but you're getting none of the benefits and protections incorporated bodies get. It's a bit silly.

cdeb

Most (95%) limited companies don't need audits and can now submit accounts prepared by anyone.

An accountant might at least give it a one-over though.

I don't see why ICU Ltd can't do the same.

cdeb

Sparks wrote: »

You are completely correct - auditing accounts is a professional service that costs money. Cdeb would know more, but we were paying about 2k or so for that annually.

For the record, dmandmyth is an accountant too.

But audit exemption is important.

DmanDmythDledge

phnompenhchess wrote: »

I'm only an accountant who has been Treasurer if the ICU - what would I know. What precisely do you think an auditor would do if you handed him incomplete accounts (and I've seen some shockers from the ICU) and ask for sign off. Be really nice and fix things up for free? Maybe on another planet. As regards lots of qualified people who play chess, yes sure, but where are they year in year out.

Not sure what you are 'noting' when you say there are no company admin tasks with a limited company. How exactly do you think the directors get changed each year after new ones get voted in? It's not by magic. Or maybe in your world we'll find some happy souls to put themselves on the line as directors whilst others run the show.

And how often in practise are agreed fees increased after the auditors have incorrectly estimated the time input for the job? Very rarely. And I'm speaking from the side of an accountant and from somebody who is involved with an NGB. It's something that could technically be pressed but if it is ever increased it's more a sign of goodwill from the organisation paying for a service. Accountants will not press too hard on such a point to avoid losing a client.

By company admin tasks I thought you were referring to company sec tasks, apologies.

phnompenhchess

cdeb wrote: »

For the record, dmandmyth is an accountant too.

But audit exemption is important.

So you are happy enough to let an inept executive, and let's face it that is the rule rather than the exception, report erroneous numbers and details to the state and to hell with the consequences. The world of the keyboard warrior on Boards really is somewhat different from reality.

phnompenhchess

DmanDmythDledge wrote: »

And how often in practise are agreed fees increased after the auditors have incorrectly estimated the time input for the job? Very rarely. And I'm speaking from the side of an accountant and from somebody who is involved with an NGB. It's something that could technically be pressed but if it is ever increased it's more a sign of goodwill from the organisation paying for a service. Accountants will not press too hard on such a point to avoid losing a client.

By company admin tasks I thought you were referring to company sec tasks, apologies.

I'm trying to figure out if your posts on this matter are intended to be serious or more in the Ballynafeigh genre. What you seem to be saying is that if an audit firm is given a set of accounts which make no sense they will roll over and accept them just to keep their 2k client happy. You really appear to have no clue whatsoever as to how badly the ICU frequently degenerates.

Retd.LoyolaCpt

Rafael Green Violist wrote: »

The big question is will any of the new exec refuse to work with Andrew.

Delighted to work with Andrew, as I believe the rest of the executive are (but I don't want to speak for them). He's been a diligent worker and fast learner from all accounts for the past year.

It was great to see so many turnout for the AGM yesterday. Judging by previous minutes, it was more than double any previous attendance!

A time and date for the Irish Blitz event is currently being worked on but could take some time to reschedule - I'd ask you to please bear with us as we try to find a new venue, date, organiser etc.

JMM

cdeb

phnompenhchess wrote: »

So you are happy enough to let an inept executive, and let's face it that is the rule rather than the exception, report erroneous numbers and details to the state and to hell with the consequences. The world of the keyboard warrior on Boards really is somewhat different from reality.

I'm happy to let the incoming exec investigate the matter, yes.

I've worked with two members' bodies who, in the past 24 months, have incorporated for this kind of reason. It's an important matter to consider, especially when we have the ICU banning members on grounds which could directly impinge on their professional reputation, and then dragging all that through the public domain. What happens if the ICU is sued? Does it affect me as a member? What can I/the ICU do about it?

These are things I kind of do want investigated.

brilliantboy

Was there any discussion yesterday regarding the duplicate website irishchessunion.net and its future?

cdeb

Very briefly; the question was asked who had ownership of the site. Can't actually remember the answer - but the way the question was phrased was clearly with a view to "How do we get rid of it?"

uck51js9zml2yt

cdeb wrote: »

Very briefly; the question was asked who had ownership of the site. Can't actually remember the answer - but the way the question was phrased was clearly with a view to "How do we get rid of it?"

I checked who.is . it looks like its owned by Colm Daly.

http://who.is/whois/irishchessunion.net

Sparks

phnompenhchess wrote: »

So you are happy enough to let an inept executive, and let's face it that is the rule rather than the exception, report erroneous numbers and details to the state and to hell with the consequences. The world of the keyboard warrior on Boards really is somewhat different from reality.

If by "keyboard warrior on Boards" you mean "two chartered accountants and someone who spent a few years as the secretary for an incorporated NGB"...

Also the vote was to investigate this, not actually go and do it. You'd need an EGM to do that (you could do it at an AGM as well I suppose, but an EGM would be better as you could focus the discussion more).

For a company like what the ICU would become, because its financial records would not be audited, any errors or omissions would be of far more concern to its members, not the CRO, who frankly don't care. You're not submitting accounts to the state here, you're lodging records of them with the state. You would only be submitting them to the state if you had a grant from the Irish Sports Council; and in that case you would actually be handing the audited accounts to them directly; you just use the same set for the CRO filing to save time and money, but you are not required to use the same set of accounts for both (if, for example, the company's financial year was sufficiently out of sync with the grant's timetable, you could prepare the accounts twice if you wanted; most don't to save money, but it's entirely legitimate to do so).

In other words, the people who would be worried most about the accounts would be the members; which is exactly where we are right now.

And I hate to point this out so bluntly, but the actions of the executive over the past year have exposed the ICU (meaning all the ICU's assets and all the officer's personal assets) to lawsuits that could have completely financially ruined the ICU and done a lot of harm to the personal finances of the officers; because the ICU being an unincorporated association means that there is no legal limit on liability of the officers. Compared with what has been done, the legal requirement to file AGM reports within a year-or-so of the end of the company's year is fairly minor and the good it would do would far outweigh the effort involved.

Ballynafeigh Chess

After the election yesterday I will be withdrawing my legal action against the ICU and will be contacting both the new ICU secretary and chairman to inform them directly of the terminated action.

phnompenhchess

Ballynafeigh Chess wrote: »

After the election yesterday I will be withdrawing my legal action against the ICU and will be contacting both the new ICU secretary and chairman to inform them directly of the terminated action.

I can't imagine anyone was losing any sleep over it but that's nice of you all the same.

cdeb

Mod note - No need for the aggression/uncivility, please, phnompenhchess.

Sparks

cdeb wrote: »

What happens if the ICU is sued?

Right now? Its assets and all the assets of the officers involved could be attached in the event of a lawsuit being lost (the current structure provides no limitation of liability of officers and there was no liability insurance last time I asked).

Does it affect me as a member?

Well, no, you'd be fairly isolated I think, but you would see the ICU financially ruined and all of its assets lost.

What can I/the ICU do about it?

Incorporate, get liability insurance, not expose the body to lawsuits in the first place, things like that.

reunion

Rafael Green Violist wrote: »

I checked who.is . it looks like its owned by Colm Daly.

http://who.is/whois/irishchessunion.net

It is owned by Colm Daly but the icu have ownership. If the icu do not get control of the website to do what they please with (my suggestion is they make it a redirect to icu.ie with the view of discontinuing it's usage), then we have an individual taking icu property and website hostage.