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

secman

Chancer3001 wrote: »

I dont agrer that the buck stops with the FAI. The auditing firm need to be held responsible there.

Delaney met 2 other lads for a look at the books and spotted the overdraft was about to be exceeded. So he gave 100k to tide them over til the SI 2m came in.

So as regards delaneys viewpoint it was grand. Things were ticking over nicely. Still made 2m profit that year.

It was up to the auditors to audit. To spot irreglaurities. To point out anything that didnt make sense.

Will you cop on ffs, Delaney chaired the Finance Committee !

Chancer3001

So what?

He didnt chair the independent auditors!

So you cop on fffffsss

givyjoe

Cyrus wrote: »

er a finding by the CRO that the allegation has a basis in fact, you seem to have deloitte as judge and jury.

you would expect it is black and white, to which my argument is, given the clean audit opinion in 2017 and prior, are we to believe that there has been such a dramatic change to the books and records kept by the entity to result in this in one year?

all that article does is search google and replicate the results and if you read it you will find the line:

If found to be guilty of contravening those sections of the law, companies and its directors can be subject to fines of up to €50,000 and prison terms of up to five years.

so its an allegation at this stage.

im not sure what your last point / question is.

That is absolute bullsh!t re: all the article does. Did you miss the bit the part that covered the specific reasons a H4 form is filed? You know, the part that references that the report was filed because the FAI did not keep adequate accounting records, which if correctly kept, should "...explain the transactions of a company; .... be kept on a continuous and consistent basis; and include all sums of money received and expended by the company...". I wonder which part of the above requirements could be relevant to the FAI's current troubles, hmmm, let me think.

The article also happens to spell out the consequences of breaches of the Companies Act because, well er.. they are the consequences. What should the writer reference as regards the consequences

I'm a bit bemused as to why you dont understand my last question.The auditors initially passed the books as fine, they're now saying they aren't. So they either made a mistake then, or they're making a mistake now. Which do you believe is more likely?

As someone else has noted, we've had a few pages about auditors, instead of JD himself. My initial point was that you were trying to deflect blame away form JD, job done this morning.

secman

Chancer3001 wrote: »

Just to be absolutely clear, the responsibility to do an audit properly is on the auditors

Just to be absolutely clear, its The directors and board duty to keep proper books of accounts and safeguard the assets of the company, the Auditors have to Express an opinion if Accounts give a true and fair view of assets , liabilities and financial position of the company.
The Directors report will also refer to sections 281to 285 of the companies Act 2014 and set out how steps have been taken to keep proper books of account.

Cyrus

givyjoe wrote: »

That is absolute bullsh!t re: all the article does. Did you miss the bit the part that covered the specific reasons a H4 form is filed? You know, the part that references that the report was filed because the FAI did not keep adequate accounting records, which if correctly kept, should "...explain the transactions of a company; .... be kept on a continuous and consistent basis; and include all sums of money received and expended by the company...". I wonder which part of the above requirements could be relevant to the FAI's current troubles, hmmm, let me think.

i repeat, the article is a copy and paste from relevant sections from the CRO website no more no less.

as to which mistake of the auditors is more likely?? what point are you trying to make? is it better if their initial mistake was in issuing a clean audit report for your purposes?

secman

Chancer3001 wrote: »

So what?

He didnt chair the independent auditors!

So you cop on fffffsss

Clueless

givyjoe

Cyrus wrote: »

i repeat, the article is a copy and paste from relevant sections from the CRO website no more no less.

as to which mistake of the auditors is more likely?? what point are you trying to make? is it better if their initial mistake was in issuing a clean audit report for your purposes?

What point are you trying to make re: copy and paste?! What exactly is the problem with referencing the CRO website?!

Did the auditors file a H4 report.. yes they did. Is this form filed because of a failure to keep proper accounts, yes it is. Fairly simple stuff for someone with your knowledge auditing knowledge I'd have thought?

The point, which I've already made, is that they haven't kept proper books of accounting, for which JD is ultimately responsible. If they're making a mistake now and the FAI DID keep proper books, then JD has nothing to answer for in that regard.

Anyway, this is all taking away from the focus of where it should be. JD. The board have all agreed to step down and are apologetic for this mess, but not JD. Is it a wonder why there's a 'witch hunt' for the man.

Chancer3001

secman wrote: »

Chancer3001 wrote: »

So what?

He didnt chair the independent auditors!

So you cop on fffffsss

Clueless

No. YOU'RE clueless.

(Im going to give it a go at debating at the standard level of this thread today)

Chancer3001

givyjoe wrote: »

Cyrus wrote: »

i repeat, the article is a copy and paste from relevant sections from the CRO website no more no less.

as to which mistake of the auditors is more likely?? what point are you trying to make? is it better if their initial mistake was in issuing a clean audit report for your purposes?

What point are you trying to make re: copy and paste?! What exactly is the problem with referencing the CRO website?!

Did the auditors file a H4 report.. yes they did. Is this form filed because of a failure to keep proper accounts, yes it is. Fairly simple stuff for someone with your knowledge auditing knowledge I'd have thought?

The point, which I've already made, is that they haven't kept proper books of accounting, for which JD is ultimately responsible. If they're making a mistake now and the FAI DID keep proper books, then JD has nothing to answer for in that regard.

Anyway, this is all taking away from the focus of where it should be. JD. The board have all agreed to step down and are apologetic for this mess, but not JD. Is it a wonder why there's a 'witch hunt' for the man.

I thought i read JD offered to step aside? Maybe thats changed

Cyrus

givyjoe wrote: »

Did the auditors file a H4 report.. yes they did. Is this form filed because of a failure to keep proper accounts, yes it is. Fairly simple stuff for someone with your knowledge auditing knowledge I'd have thought?
.

its an allegation, how many times do i need to repeat it.

your attempt at condescension is noted and ignored.

givyjoe

Chancer3001 wrote: »

I thought i read JD offered to step aside? Maybe thats changed

..until Mazars complete their report. He hasn't given any indication that he's stepping down from the FAI permanently. Why hasn't he simply resigned with no conditions attached?

Chancer3001

I guess he doesnt feel he needs to

Or hes hoping mazers report will paint things in a better light for him

givyjoe

Cyrus wrote: »

its an allegation, how many times do i need to repeat it.

For christ sake, you claimed earlier to have a knowledge of auditing. What do you think they're basing the H4 report on, hearsay? They are basing it on black and white books of accounting, they are either kept properly or they aren't. Bizarre stuff from you, honestly.

As for condescension, you've a short memory.

Cyrus

givyjoe wrote: »

For christ sake, you claimed earlier to have a knowledge of auditing. What do you think they're basing the H4 report on, hearsay? They are basing it on black and white books of accounting, they are either kept properly or they aren't. Bizarre stuff from you, honestly.

to be correct they are basing it on missing books of account, black, white and every colour in between. Or they allege they are.

there has been no finding, adverse or otherwise regarding the books of account.

if i walk into a police station in the morning and file a report of assault against you, have you assaulted me?

givyjoe

Chancer3001 wrote: »

I guess he doesnt feel he needs to

Or hes hoping mazers report will paint things in a better light for him

Riiiight, but the entire board did.. you seriously think, in light of what we already know, that the ONLY one who's going to be absolved of this and allowed to continue in his role is JD?!

givyjoe

Cyrus wrote: »

to be correct they are basing it on missing books of account, black, white and every colour in between. Or they allege they are.

there has been no finding, adverse or otherwise regarding the books of account.

if i walk into a police station in the morning and file a report of assault against you, have you assaulted me?

Imagine I had CCTV footage of the entire incident, you could claim its an allegation all you like, but it's there in black and white (or colour for the fancy CCTV). Even better, lets say I shot you point blank in the head, at random and all caught on CCTV. Yeah, lets say it's still just an allegation.

Honestly, at this point you may as well be sticking your fingers in ears screaming "you can't triple stamp a double stamp, you can't triple stamp a double stamp"

To recap...

1. Delaney tries to stop a story breaking by applying for an injunction, and fails
2. The story reveals a loan, Delaney steps aside as CEO
3. Sport Ireland repeatedly ask the reason for the loan, Delaney and the FAI do not provide an explanation
4. The FAI President distances himself from FAI statements and apologises to Sport Ireland
5. Sport Ireland suspend all funding
6. Delaney and Co. avoid questions put at an Oireachtas Committee
7. More revelations reveal lavish spending on expenses, including cash withdrawals
8. The FAI accepts it has governance and financial issues that require "many urgent steps" and the board is stepping down
9. Deloiite inform the CRO that the FAI failed to keep proper accounts
10. Dots disappears. Chancer changes from abuse and telling other posters they are stupid to blaming the Auditors...

This saga just keeps giving and giving and giving.

givyjoe

Deleted User wrote: »

To recap...

1. Delaney tries to stop a story breaking by applying for an injunction, and fails
2. The story reveals a loan, Delaney steps aside as CEO
3. Sport Ireland repeatedly ask the reason for the loan, Delaney and the FAI do not provide an explanation
4. The FAI President distances himself from FAI statements and apologises to Sport Ireland
5. Sport Ireland suspend all funding
6. Delaney and Co. avoid questions put at an Oireachtas Committee
7. More revelations reveal lavish spending on expenses, including cash withdrawals
8. The FAI accepts it has governance and financial issues that require "many urgent steps" and the board is stepping down
9. Deloiite inform the CRO that the FAI failed to keep proper accounts
10. Dots disappears. Chancer changes from abuse and telling other posters they are stupid to blaming the Auditors...

This saga just keeps giving and giving and giving.

Lets not forget the Jonathan Hall report, backdated to make it seem like the move from CEO to Senior Executive Vice President was all part of the plan. :pac:

Cyrus

givyjoe wrote: »

Imagine I had CCTV footage of the entire incident, you could claim its an allegation all you like, but it's there in black and white (or colour for the fancy CCTV). Even better, lets say I shot you point blank in the head, at random and all caught on CCTV. Yeah, lets say it's still just an allegation.

Honestly, at this point you may as well be sticking your fingers in ears screaming "you can't triple stamp a double stamp, you can't triple stamp a double stamp"

thats pretty rich coming from you,

its an allegation, they have signed off on clean audits, its very suspicious, id like to see some proof.

amcalester

Cyrus wrote: »

if i walk into a police station in the morning and file a report of assault against you, have you assaulted me?

No, but if the Gardaí don't catch the criminal then that doesn't mean there was no assault or that the assaulter did nothing wrong.

The auditor's poor performance is irrelevant to JD's position, successful audits or not, it's clear he did not have the correct processes in place.

Pedro K

[Deleted User] wrote: »

To recap...

1. Delaney tries to stop a story breaking by applying for an injunction, and fails
2. The story reveals a loan, Delaney steps aside as CEO
3. Sport Ireland repeatedly ask the reason for the loan, Delaney and the FAI do not provide an explanation
4. The FAI President distances himself from FAI statements and apologises to Sport Ireland
5. Sport Ireland suspend all funding
6. Delaney and Co. avoid questions put at an Oireachtas Committee
7. More revelations reveal lavish spending on expenses, including cash withdrawals
8. The FAI accepts it has governance and financial issues that require "many urgent steps" and the board is stepping down
9. Deloiite inform the CRO that the FAI failed to keep proper accounts
10. Dots disappears. Chancer changes from abuse and telling other posters they are stupid to blaming the Auditors...

This saga just keeps giving and giving and giving.

And some within this thread continue to wave their arms and say, "nothing to see here."

givyjoe

Cyrus wrote: »

thats pretty rich coming from you,

its an allegation, they have signed off on clean audits, its very suspicious, id like to see some proof.

I'm not the one swimming against the tide of evidence, or desperately trying to deflect the blame away from JD.

I'm sure Deloitte are sending you a copy of the H4 report as we speak :rolleyes:.

What is suspicious about it specifically? What exactly are you insinuating? Is it more or less suspicious than the CEO 'needing' to give his organisation a 100k loan, and only informing some of the board? Genuinely trying to gauge exactly what it is you consider to be dodgy.

Deise Vu

Cyrus wrote: »

to be correct they are basing it on missing books of account, black, white and every colour in between. Or they allege they are.

there has been no finding, adverse or otherwise regarding the books of account.

if i walk into a police station in the morning and file a report of assault against you, have you assaulted me?

I don't know why I am joining this argument because I have serious doubts about the sincerity of some posters but some of the ignorance being displayed here needs to be corrected.

If you are assaulted you are innocent until proven guilty. In the case of a filing by auditors that proper books of account have not been kept they are invalidating their previous 'clean' audit report. The FAI now do not have a clean set of accounts which will inevitably attract the attention of Revenue and should also be of massive concern to their bankers and to people like SI.

Giving a clean audit report and then following up with a H4 filing regarding contravention of S281 and S282 are not mutually incompatible as you seem to be implying. The Auditors will audit the books and records they are supplied with, get confirmation from the Directors that they have all the books and records and that they have been properly maintained, and they will then give an opinion.

If it subsequently transpires that a company clearly did not maintain proper records, the auditors will lodge a H4 to ensure that all stakeholders are aware that their clean opinion is now invalid. Possible examples of this would be Directors (not saying it happened in this case, obviously) maintaining separate cash slush funds which weren't put through the records. It could also be that items in the accounts are deliberately mis-classified. E.G (and again, not saying it happened in this case , God Forbid) a loan from a director could be shown as a suspense item received in error and the repayment as the contra entry.

The bottom line is that the Auditors, having learnt of new information, are saying the FAI's accounts are not clean.That is entirely, 100%, on the Directors.

Cyrus

givyjoe wrote: »

I'm not the one swimming against the tide of evidence, or desperately trying to deflect the blame away from JD.

I'm sure Deloitte are sending you a copy of the H4 report as we speak :rolleyes:.

What is suspicious about it specifically? What exactly are you insinuating? Is it more or less suspicious than the CEO 'needing' to give his organisation a 100k loan, and only informing some of the board? Genuinely trying to gauge exactly what it is you consider to be dodgy.

you dont see what is suspicious about the issuance of years of clean audit opinions and then a filing allegating incomplete books and records being kept?

why are you conflating completely different issues?

what evidence am i swimming against? what have you seen exactly? apart from the froth from your mouth :pac:

Cyrus

Deise Vu wrote: »

Giving a clean audit report and then following up with a H4 filing regarding contravention of S281 and S282 are not mutually incompatible as you seem to be implying.

i disagree, it doesn't say much for their audit procedures. are you suggesting that a proper audit firms work is solely based on information provided to them by the company? and they dont seek to corroborate this with 3rd parties or use alternative testing ?

givyjoe

Cyrus wrote: »

you dont see what is suspicious about the issuance of years of clean audit opinions and then a filing allegating incomplete books and records being kept?

why are you conflating completely different issues?

what evidence am i swimming against? what have you seen exactly? apart from the froth from your mouth :pac:

I think Deise Vu above succinctly and neatly puts your 'expert' opinion back in its box.

By all means, please clearly state what is suspicious about the auditors current position.

Chancer3001

My point was never "nothing to see here"

My point was just because there's issues that need improving on, doesnt meam delaney et al have to be sacked

ESPECIALLY when nothing has been proven.

Cyrus

givyjoe wrote: »

I think Deise Vu above succinctly and neatly puts your 'expert' opinion back in its box.

By all means, please clearly state what is suspicious about the auditors current position.

colour me surprised at your reaction,

supports post that backs you up

i have already stated it. its an backside covering exercise and is cynical in the extreme.

Chancer3001

I know that question wasnt aimed at me, but i think its a bit rich that the auditing firm signed off on accounts for over a decade, said everything was correct and above board,.... and now when maybe its not been auditef properly...its delaneys fault

kippy

Chancer3001 wrote: »

My point was never "nothing to see here"

My point was just because there's issues that need improving on, doesnt meam delaney et al have to be sacked

ESPECIALLY when nothing has been proven.

Yourself and others (earlier in this thread) were all "nothing to see here".
Lets not revise history.


What do you want proven about the use of credit cards when people were taking paycuts/couldnt afford tracksuits elsewhere in the organisation?
What do you want proven about the attempts to hide a 100K loan from directors and the general public?
What do you want proven about the lack of answers to state oversight committees?
What do you want proven about the attempts to hide the fact that his rent has been paid for years?

Anyone with a decent moral compass (probably wouldn't end up doing what has been done tbf) but would at least realise THEY are the problem, not the solution and do the right thing.

This guy has made a fortune off the back of Irish soccer yet refused point blankly to answer any questions asked of him YEARLY - not just in front of Oireachtas committees.