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

givyjoe

Cyrus wrote: »

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.

Backs me up?! You mean backs the auditors up.

So not really suspicious at all then, i.e there is something to cover up, being either a mistake and/or their incompetence.

Why would they do it, if there wasn't a real problem with the FAI's books?

Cyrus

givyjoe wrote: »

Backs me up?! You mean backs the auditors up.

So not really suspicious at all then, i.e there is something to cover up, being either a mistake and/or their incompetence.

Why would they do it, if there wasn't a real problem with the FAI's books?

backs the auditors up? what now?

covering up their own incompetence is suspicious.

they would do it to cover up their own failings

kippy

Chancer3001 wrote: »

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

The auditors look to have done a poor job, but again, their outputs are based on:
The inputs they are given and I would suspect, the money they are being paid/time they have billed for the auditing.

Delaney didn't even tell the board about the 100K - its likely it was nowhere in the accounts either. Who knows what else was hidden in the accounts? (The answer to this should be relatively obvious)

Amirani

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:

Cyrus, it's become pretty apparent that you're out of your depth on this subject matter. Beasty and Deise Vu have given pretty succinct explanations that I can endorse having worked in audit.

Anyway, regardless of the performance of the auditors in this situation, the FAI's board is being investigated for breaching company law by not maintaining proper accounting records. The breadth and scope of these breaches is unclear, as is whether or not the audit should have identified them. Until we find out what the actual breaches are, then we can't really decide that. What is clear, and is more pertinent to the Soccer forum, is that the FAI board and leadership has shown itself to be completely unfit for purpose.

Chancer3001

Chancer3001 wrote: »

ESPECIALLY when nothing has been proven.

Someone is missing the bit where the FAI accepted that they had serious governance and financial issues.

To use sporting parlance Chancer, game over, ball burst...

Cyrus

Amirani wrote: »

Cyrus, it's become pretty apparent that you're out of your depth on this subject matter. Beasty and Deise Vu have given pretty succinct explanations that I can endorse having worked in audit.

Anyway, regardless of the performance of the auditors in this situation, the FAI's board is being investigated for breaching company law by not maintaining proper accounting records. The breadth and scope of these breaches is unclear, as is whether or not the audit should have identified them. Until we find out what the actual breaches are, then we can't really decide that. What is clear, and is more pertinent to the Soccer forum, is that the FAI board and leadership has shown itself to be completely unfit for purpose.

you have supported my position with your second paragraph which makes your opening statement strange.

you arent the only one who has worked in audit so forgive me if i dont take your endorsement as infallible.

Deise Vu

Cyrus wrote: »

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 ?

No I'm not saying that. Auditors will routinely get external confirmation such as from banks. If, in the course of their audit, they come across an indication that something is amiss (eg an account transfer in a bank that doesn't cross check with the declared bank accounts), then they will expand their audit to get an explanation and, if it is not satisfactory, they will qualify the accounts.

They absolutely will not go on a solo run trawling expedition and they are not expected to.

Quandary

Sure just leave Delaney in charge. He's a sound auld skin, bit of a character. It doesn't matter if he is clearly incapable of running a multi million èuro corporate entity. It doesn't matter if he takes a few liberties with a few expenses. It doesn't matter if he has been fastidiously feathering his nest for the last 15 odd years.

He's like the Bertie Ahearn of the FAI. It doesn't matter how obviously slippery,devious and self serving he is, you will always have some pig headed few defending him even after the world's biggest spotlight has been shone on his transgressions.

Cyrus

Deise Vu wrote: »

No I'm not saying that. Auditors will routinely get external confirmation such as from banks. If, in the course of their audit, they come across an indication that something is amiss (eg an account transfer in a bank that doesn't cross check with the declared bank accounts), then they will expand their audit to get an explanation and, if it is not satisfactory, they will qualify the accounts.

They absolutely will not go on a solo run trawling expedition and they are not expected to.

watchdogs not bloodhounds....

i never said that they would, but the assertion here by many is that the books and records presented by a company are taken as gospel and they dont look outside that, which is utter nonsense.

and if a particular transaction looks suspicious they will go as far as they need to satisfy themselves regarding it, or if not qualify their opinion.

do you find it plausible that they now suddenly have concerns over proper books and records having audited the entity for a number of years? do you not finding the timing a little coincidental?

amcalester

Chancer3001 wrote: »

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

JD is not necessarily at fault for the Audit not being done properly, but he's certainly at fault and responsible for any issues that the audit should have discovered.

Whether they were or not is irrelevant.

awec

Chancer3001 wrote: »

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

Good grief.

Do you just not understand the posts on this thread from people much more knowledgable than yourself or are you being deliberately obtuse?

Dubh Geannain

Chancer3001 wrote: »

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

Just like the neutered Financial Regulator and auditors that let the banks run amok during the Septic Tiger.

The auditors aren't coming out in a good light here but blaming them for the mess is akin to blaming the barman for letting a drunk drink himself into a stupor. The drunk could have been concealing some drinks in his bag or sneaking next door for a top up.

The blame lies firmly with the the glass of JD and Folk.

Deise Vu

Cyrus wrote: »

watchdogs not bloodhounds....

i never said that they would, but the assertion here by many is that the books and records presented by a company are taken as gospel and they dont look outside that, which is utter nonsense.

and if a particular transaction looks suspicious they will go as far as they need to satisfy themselves regarding it, or if not qualify their opinion.

do you find it plausible that they now suddenly have concerns over proper books and records having audited the entity for a number of years? do you not finding the timing a little coincidental?

Please tell me you are not serious? Of course the timing is not coincidental.

There are two investigations going on into FAI governance. During the course of those investigations the auditors will be asked about specific items (eg why JD's loan advance and repayment was not declared in the 2017 accounts). I have no idea what specifically triggered the H4 but it is reasonable to assume that the Auditors have now been supplied with information with which they were not previously aware.

Cyrus

Deise Vu wrote: »

I have no idea what specifically triggered the H4 but it is reasonable to assume that the Auditors have now been supplied with information with which they were not previously aware.

nor do i, but i would rather wait and see than jump to conclusions.

from any information i have seen the 100k was both lodged and then paid out of an operating bank account so the transaction wasnt hidden, rather the nature of it, it would appear.

i would hope there is more to it than that though, as that in and of it self is hardly grounds for a H4 filing.

givyjoe

Cyrus wrote: »

nor do i, but i would rather wait and see than jump to conclusions.

from any information i have seen the 100k was both lodged and then paid out of an operating bank account so the transaction wasnt hidden, rather the nature of it, it would appear.

i would hope there is more to it than that though, as that in and of it self is hardly grounds for a H4 filing.

Remember you banging on about this article just being a copy and pasted from the CRO? Well if you had read it, you might have noted this part '... ‘adequate account records’ are those that correctly record and explain the transactions of a company.
Not keeping adequate records is a reason for a H4 report be file and not explaining the transactions = not keeping adequate records. I'm just referencing what you stated was copied and pasted from the CRO website.

Cyrus

givyjoe wrote: »

Remember you banging on about this article just being a copy and pasted from the CRO? Well if you had read it, you might have noted this part '... ‘adequate account records’ are those that correctly record and explain the transactions of a company.
Not keeping adequate records is a reason for a H4 report be file and not explaining the transactions = not keeping adequate records. I'm just referencing what you stated was copied and pasted from the CRO website.

yes and as i said in my opinion, non disclosure of a relatively immaterial transaction involving a director in and of itself is unlikely to trigger a H4 filing, and i am keen to see what else they allege

do you comprehend?

Deise Vu

Cyrus wrote: »

nor do i, but i would rather wait and see than jump to conclusions.

from any information i have seen the 100k was both lodged and then paid out of an operating bank account so the transaction wasnt hidden, rather the nature of it, it would appear.

i would hope there is more to it than that though, as that in and of it self is hardly grounds for a H4 filing.

Just to be clear. The only thing we don't know is the specifics of the gap in the books and records. The auditors, who previously, said the accounts were in agreement with the books and records and in compliance with the Companies Act have withdrawn that opinion in the light of new information.

That means De Facto, 100%, as a matter of certainty, the Auditors say the records are incomplete or false. There's no need for a jury or any investigation. The next step is the ODCE will follow up and decide what sanctions will apply.

Cyrus

Deise Vu wrote: »

Just to be clear. The only thing we don't know is the specifics of the gap in the books and records. The auditors, who previously, said the accounts were in agreement with the books and records and in compliance with the Companies Act have withdrawn that opinion in the light of new information.

That means De Facto, 100%, as a matter of certainty, the Auditors say the records are incomplete or false. There's no need for a jury or any investigation. The next step is the ODCE will follow up and decide what sanctions will apply.

to my knowledge the fai has not been found to be guilty of contravening those sections of company law. So someone will decide if they are guilty or not. Surely that does require an investigation into the facts as presented. How else do the ODCE decide what sanctions, if any, apply?

Chancer3001

How could the auditors have missed 100k cheque coming in and 100k being paid back out?

Especially since that 100k went into the "main" bank account to stop it going over the overdraft limit. So its not like it was "hidden" away.

Whatever board remains of the FAI , job number 1 is to find new auditors.

In response to whoever asked about delaney spending while some teams struggled... its all a matter of priorities.

That time period with hugh expenses (i believe i read this somewhere) was during a key time where the fai was trying to win the rights to host some big games.

Hosting big games was just way higher in the priority list (rightly or wrongly) than say the womens soccer team. You can argue the pros and cons of both sides.

D14Rugby

Jesus some posters have managed to do a full 180 on their opinion of the auditors in less than 12 hours. That's impressive

Deise Vu

Cyrus wrote: »

to my knowledge the fai has not been found to be guilty of contravening those sections of company law. So someone will decide if they are guilty or not. Surely that does require an investigation into the facts as presented. How else do the ODCE decide what sanctions, if any, apply?

The auditors, who are the experts, have said S281 and S282 have been contravened. The only matter to be investigated by the ODCE is how egregious the breaches were and to apply appropriate sanctions.

Cyrus

Deise Vu wrote: »

The auditors, who are the experts, have said S281 and S282 have been contravened. The only matter to be investigated by the ODCE is how egregious the breaches were and to apply appropriate sanctions.

You lost me at experts

But seriously you are effectively making the same point, the odce will investigate the breaches alleged and decide what action to take , if any .

Deise Vu

Cyrus wrote: »

You lost me at experts

But seriously you are effectively making the same point, the odce will investigate the breaches alleged and decide what action to take , if any .

There, fixed that for you. Now we are in agreement.

kippy

Chancer3001 wrote: »

How could the auditors have missed 100k cheque coming in and 100k being paid back out?

Especially since that 100k went into the "main" bank account to stop it going over the overdraft limit. So its not like it was "hidden" away.

Whatever board remains of the FAI , job number 1 is to find new auditors.

In response to whoever asked about delaney spending while some teams struggled... its all a matter of priorities.

That time period with hugh expenses (i believe i read this somewhere) was during a key time where the fai was trying to win the rights to host some big games.

Hosting big games was just way higher in the priority list (rightly or wrongly) than say the womens soccer team. You can argue the pros and cons of both sides.

Who is responsible for the 100K cheque in and out - the auditors?

We only have access to details for 6 months of expenses so far......
It's hard to explain away cash withdrawals off a credit card......

Chancer3001

No jd is responsinle for the cheque. Clearly.

But the auditors shouldnt have missed it coming in and going out.

The 6 months "so far"... if i was guessing id say we were deliberately leaked the most expensive 6 months...

Chardee MacDennis

Jesus Christ lads, this thread is a s***show....

kippy

Chancer3001 wrote: »

No jd is responsinle for the cheque. Clearly.

But the auditors shouldnt have missed it coming in and going out.

The 6 months "so far"... if i was guessing id say we were deliberately leaked the most expensive 6 months...

They shouldn't have missed it - I agree.
In the same way as the CEO shouldn't have done it, misled the board, refused to answer questions on it,

I'd like to see the details for the past 10 years on his CC to be honest.

givyjoe

Cyrus wrote: »

yes and as i said in my opinion, non disclosure of a relatively immaterial transaction involving a director in and of itself is unlikely to trigger a H4 filing, and i am keen to see what else they allege

do you comprehend?

Condescension noted and ignored :pac::pac::pac:

Oh, a relatively immaterial transaction is it? Strange JD would get try get an injunction preventing the publication of an article around it. Even stranger that JD would then refuse to answer any questions on the transaction and hide behind 'legal advice'.

Why are you so keen to see what else they allege, so we get even more reasons why JD needs to be removed asap?

sydthebeat

Cyrus wrote: »

...... non disclosure of a relatively immaterial transaction involving a director....... ?

That delaney seeked a court injunction against its disclosure....

Immaterial my ass!!!

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

Chardee MacDennis wrote: »

Jesus Christ lads, this thread is a s***show....

because the mods are ignoring it as it is generating clicks and content. The usual story.

Trolls encouraged, those responding carded and banned.