John Delaney at the FAI Thread - (Mod Notes in OP)

Dots1982

Irishmale0399 wrote: »

A group have lobbied for JD to appear infront of a government comittee....he had no time last month, is expected in April if he doesnt find another reason to leave.



Since then....
- LOI clubs officiall allowed to share goal clips before Monday nigh RTE

coverage (there is no deal for LOI coverage...)

- LOI manager appointed to the U21s, with promise of first team

- Term periods have been fix for FAI comitte members
- He organised a coat and dagger meeting in a pub with hand picked fans,

a few of which have been public about his position.
- He tried to block a story in the news papers about loans to the FAI


A large group of fans have been staying away from the Aviva for a while. All you have to do is watch games...the stadium isnt every full at lower tier level.



Banner fly overs of the Aviva stopped at the last minute, pilot was advised not to fly, fans searched by JDs head of security at home and away games to take banners or flags off them, heavy handed security in the singing section of the Aviva and FAI employees searching socail media looking for critical fans, banners or plan for protest.....

You would need to see low attendances at big qualifiers when the team is doing well to really classify it as a boycott. Right now most could be staying away for the same reason as all other football fans stay away- Their team is crap.

Dots1982

Irishmale0399 wrote: »

Who makes up these boards and parties.....friends of himself and his father. Its a closed shop and it should stay that way....if its open why havent any of the lads on YBIG forum been allowed join or ask questions.

I’ve said 3 pages ago he’s guilty of cronyism. It’s not illegal.

Irishmale0399

Dots1982 wrote: »

To repeat myself ..Negative publicity or scrutiny for high profile figures is best avoided.

Somebody from the FAI said something very similar to me at a game recently. Small, round, baldy fella.....in an away foreign ground.

Irishmale0399

Dots1982 wrote: »

You would need to see low attendances at big qualifiers when the team is doing well to really classify it as a boycott. Right now most could be staying away for the same reason as all other football fans stay away- Their team is crap.

Interesting would be to find out how many tickets the FAI gave away for the last qualifier......think most people would be suprised if the figures came out. But that will never be public as the FAI dont answer to anyone.

Dots1982

kippy wrote: »

What's negative about this?

Jesus im really I’m at a loss with you....How would you classify the media and social media coverage of John Delaney and the FAI since Saturday night? Would you say it’s been positive, neutral or negative?

kippy

Dots1982 wrote: »

Jesus im really I’m at a loss with you....How would you classify the media and social media coverage of John Delaney and the FAI since Saturday night? Would you say it’s been positive, neutral or negative?

Well if the FAI had been successful with their court order there would have been no coverage.

Dots1982

kippy wrote: »

Well if the FAI had been successful with their court order there would have been no coverage.

Yes, that’s true...so...what’s your point?

kippy

Dots1982 wrote: »

Yes, that’s true...so...what’s your point?

What's caused the most damage to his rep at this stage?
The initial act or the attempted cover up?

Dots1982

kippy wrote: »

What's caused the most damage to his rep at this stage?
The initial act or the attempted cover up?

Both caused damage. The initial story was negative publicity so Delaney wanted it spiked. The only way your point would have merit is if the initial story wasn’t negative.

shanec1928

dan1895 wrote: »

Never realised Delaney's bootlicks were on here in such numbers.

Defending till the bitter end.

Deise Vu

It is a bizarre story this but I think, for a change, there is probably less to it than meets the eye. I just had a look at the FAI's 2017 accounts and they don't paint a great picture. Turnover was pretty much the same €49M V €50M in 2016 and retained profit after grants etc was €2.7M V €2.3M. What is noticeable though is that, thanks to some balance sheet changes, the current bank account situation deteriorated from a positive €970K to a negaitve €1.3M. Given the erratic nature of income for the FAI it would be very easy to see a situation where they might suddenly have come up against the overdraft limit.

Long term borrowings have also barely shifted from €39M in 2016 to €38.2M. Thats is probably the key to Delaney's attempted subterfuge. It is difficult to see how he can back up his claims to be be debt free in a few years ("if we choose to, rather than re-invest") when your long term debt is stubbornly stuck in the high €30M's. There is also the un-professional appearance of a sizeable company having to dip into a Director's funds to fund cashflow issues.

If you want to be picky the note on transactions with Directors fails to mention the loan. If you want to get real picky there is a detailed note on 'going concern' and the uncertainty of funds through performance etc but no mention that things were so precarious that JD had to fund the company short-term. I'm sure JD was able to convince the auditors it was just the easiest thing to do at the time rather than applying to the bank for emergency funds. I would be curious to see the covenants attached to the long term borrowings and what they say about other borrowings / overdraft facilities. That might possibly be interesting.

Fr Tod Umptious

Dots1982 wrote: »

You would need to see low attendances at big qualifiers when the team is doing well to really classify it as a boycott. Right now most could be staying away for the same reason as all other football fans stay away- Their team is crap.

A boycott of the home leg of a playoff, or the last home game of a qualification with it all on the line.

Now that would be a proper boycott.

Dots1982

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

A boycott of the home leg of a playoff, or the last home game of a qualification with it all on the line.

Now that would be a proper boycott.

Aye, you’ll be a long time waiting for that

OldMrBrennan83

You'll find enough event whores to fill the stadium even if there was one so they wouldn't care.

kippy

Dots1982 wrote: »

Both caused damage. The initial story was negative publicity so Delaney wanted it spiked. The only way your point would have merit is if the initial story wasn’t negative.

What was negative about it? (The initial story that is?)

Dots1982

kippy wrote: »

What was negative about it? (The initial story that is?)

Ah jaysis, do I need to explain this? this is like school.

The FAI had a cash flow problem and the CEO bailed them out with a loan.

kippy

Dots1982 wrote: »

Ah jaysis, do I need to explain this? this is like school.

The FAI had a cash flow problem and the CEO bailed them out with a loan.

And sure what's negative about that. Isn't a good thing for him that he could support the organisation he works for?
Unless of course there's more to it.

Dots1982

kippy wrote: »

And sure what's negative about that. Isn't a good thing for him that he could support the organisation he works for?
Unless of course there's more to it.

Yeah it’s a brilliant situation to be CEO of a firm that is unable to meet its financial commitments. It’s the dream scenario really.

I’ve given up.

The Talking Bread

Dots1982 wrote: »

Yeah it’s a brilliant situation to be CEO of a firm that is unable to meet its financial commitments. It’s the dream scenario really.

I’ve given up.

This probably isn't true

larchielads

kippy wrote: »

And sure what's negative about that. Isn't a good thing for him that he could support the organisation he works for?
Unless of course there's more to it.

They wouldn't need the money if they weren't paying him 250k a year in the first place, think that's what most people are complaining about.

If the man was on say 100k a year and was doing a good job of it for that salary and was able to invest his money in his own personal businesses or save his money,all above board of course and if the fai did fall into financial difficulty through no fault of paying someone an obscene amount of money for a below standard job that they were doing then maybe people could accept him giving a loan as it were to the fai.

Basically he loaned them back money he didn't deserve to be earning if he was on 100k a year that's a saving of 150k a year salary wise. And how long has he been earning 250k , say up to 10 yrs ok we'll say 5. So 5 x 150k in savings is 750k.

There ye go no need for a loan from Del boy

kippy

Dots1982 wrote: »

Yeah it’s a brilliant situation to be CEO of a firm that is unable to meet its financial commitments. It’s the dream scenario really.

I’ve given up.

So finally, at best he is an absolutely useless CEO. At worst theres more to it than meets the eye or the initial trio of press releases the FAI have put out.

Id want to see who paid for the legal action as well, would assume it came out of JDs own pocket.

Irishmale0399

sugarman wrote: »

Hes on €360k and thats after he took a 10% paycut!

Only to get a gig with UEFA for an extra €100K or so more per year......and we wont mention his expenses which no one is allowed to ask about.

CrowdedHouse

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0319/1037395-fai-loan/

Irishmale0399

CrowdedHouse wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0319/1037395-fai-loan/

Sports Ireland...not informed about financial problems.....


Now the washing is being washed.....maybe the reason for the injunction???

givyjoe

larchielads wrote: »

They wouldn't need the money if they weren't paying him 250k a year in the first place, think that's what most people are complaining about.

If the man was on say 100k a year and was doing a good job of it for that salary and was able to invest his money in his own personal businesses or save his money,all above board of course and if the fai did fall into financial difficulty through no fault of paying someone an obscene amount of money for a below standard job that they were doing then maybe people could accept him giving a loan as it were to the fai.

Basically he loaned them back money he didn't deserve to be earning if he was on 100k a year that's a saving of 150k a year salary wise. And how long has he been earning 250k , say up to 10 yrs ok we'll say 5. So 5 x 150k in savings is 750k.

There ye go no need for a loan from Del boy

Isn't he paid 350k per year?

Dots1982

Irishmale0399 wrote: »

Sports Ireland...not informed about financial problems.....


Now the washing is being washed.....maybe the reason for the injunction???

The judge has certainly being vindicated about allowing the Sunday times print the story.

kippy

Dots1982 wrote: »

The judge has certainly being vindicated about allowing the Sunday times print the story.

Are you starting to see some sense?

CrowdedHouse

....and today's daily statement is in....

https://twitter.com/McDonnellDan/status/1108088797009453056

dundalkfc10

The mans a disgrace!

He earns a few grand less than the whole prize money in the LOI!

I pray to God he’s done something illegal and gets the book thrown at him!

Proper Protest needed Tues. They can’t stop 10,000 odd chanting about Delaney

dundalkfc10

Dots1982 wrote: »

kippy wrote: »

What was negative about it? (The initial story that is?)

Ah jaysis, do I need to explain this? this is like school.

The FAI had a cash flow problem and the CEO bailed them out with a loan.

Serious question from reading the past few pages, Is this you John or do you just work for FAI?