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

givyjoe

Faith Some Loop wrote: »

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

Trolls encouraged, those responding carded and banned.

To be fair, I don't think anyone has so far, at least not in the last week.

irishgeo

The cheque was hidden. Was wasn't it lodged to the main bank account straight away. Not transferred from another account first. Secondly no knowns how the money was accounted for when it was paid back.

Awesomeness

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.

Yeah we never would have got those games if John hadn't got his sunday lunch in the local pub while wearing his new hilfiger jacket

secman

It was lodged and repaid, but it was not reported in the financial statements as a " related party transaction " which it definitely was. One of the "hidden" aspects was it was only disclosed to 3 board members. We also dont know how it was described in the receipts book of account nor how it was described in the payments ledger, this may have been a difficulty for the Auditors, if it wasnt specifically identified as being from John Delaney and being repaid to John Delaney.
Mazzars are currently investigating this aspect ,and also as to what gave rise to the necessity of the transaction, were "client " bank accounts such as UEFA prize monies for clubs properly ring fenced and not used for operating purposes.

Oat23

Chardee MacDennis wrote: »

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

I've actually changed my opinion on chancer/dots. They are performing a service with their trolling because they keep this thread in the top 5 on the front page of the forum most of the day. More eyes on it the better.

Irishmale0399

Lads we have to keep 2-3 things in mind here....

1. The auditors could only audit what the FAI gave them access to.....did they see everything or were they given paper statements etc. which were not 100% but added up. Now that they have seen reports in the paper they realise they have been had and reported it to the right body.

2. Yesterday everyone was asking for a independant foresnic audit....all saying OK. Reading between the lines they either know more is coming or they suspect that more is in the pipeline. O´Dowd questioned Mazars being the right people and other TDs pushed for a public investigation. They were also aware that the high court could be used against the state....have the FAI told them JD is threatening it???

3. R. Troy spoke about backhanders to get business witht he FAI....was he trying to tell the public something??? He also mentioned (or 1 of the others) that Mark T would surely have more info to make public....

JD on gardening leave and his 2 closest board members resigning is a statement in itself....JD is fighting for a payoff...the remaining board dont want to give it to him and have to find ammo to make sure they are not forced to do so. They obviously need time to do now that they should have been doing for years....look very closely at the organisation instead of accepting Kim Dong Ds word.

Irishmale0399

https://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/international-soccer/sport-ireland-chief-john-treacy-john-delaney-is-not-a-part-of-the-fai-anymore-38025567.html

D14Rugby

Irishmale0399 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/international-soccer/sport-ireland-chief-john-treacy-john-delaney-is-not-a-part-of-the-fai-anymore-38025567.html

Still there

John Delaney isn't part of the FAI anymore. He is on gardening leave, or whatever the description is

Irishmale0399

D14Rugby wrote: »

Still there

John Delaney isn't part of the FAI anymore. He is on gardening leave, or whatever the description is

I think that is the difference....yesterday he stepped aside and was on what one would call gardening leave.


Today he is not part of the FAI anymore.....would give me the feeling that they have pushed him to one side and are now trying to find the dirty to ensure they dont have to pay anything when they do push him the last few cm off the plank.

salmocab

Irishmale0399 wrote: »

I think that is the difference....yesterday he stepped aside and was on what one would call gardening leave.


Today he is not part of the FAI anymore.....would give me the feeling that they have pushed him to one side and are now trying to find the dirty to ensure they dont have to pay anything when they do push him the last few cm off the plank.

The article says he’s on gardening leave so I’d say it’s no change

Arghus

Faith Some Loop wrote: »

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

Trolls encouraged, those responding carded and banned.

I've come to terms with it at this stage.

It's actually entertaining to read the half-baked Pro-Delaney/FAI guff some are spouting on here being consistently and ruthlessly thoroughly debunked and dismantled by other more knowledgeable posters.

Haven't seen any cards or bannings, at least not for a long while?

irishgeo

D14Rugby wrote: »

Still there

John Delaney isn't part of the FAI anymore. He is on gardening leave, or whatever the description is

gardening leave, means he still getting paid his probably reduced wages, i wonder is his rent still being paid.

OldMrBrennan83

Arghus wrote: »

I've come to terms with it at this stage.

It's actually entertaining to read the half-baked Pro-Delaney/FAI guff some are spouting on here being consistently and ruthlessly thoroughly debunked and dismantled by other more knowledgeable posters.

Haven't seen any cards or bannings, at least not for a long while?

If bannings and cards start getting handed out for opinions though, even if most don't agree, then it's time to shut up shop altogether. That's already creeping in to AH and PC all too often, don't need it in sport too.

Skylinehead

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

If bannings and cards start getting handed out for opinions though, even if most don't agree, then it's time to shut up shop altogether. That's already creeping in to AH and PC all too often, don't need it in sport too.

Keep your bullshit to feedback please. Doesn't happen.

OldMrBrennan83

Nixonbot wrote: »

Keep your bullshit to feedback please. Doesn't happen.

Go and lie in your piss, I was replying to a post clamouring for cards like everyone has to have the same viewpoint.

I don't agree with any of these pro Delaney posters but what's to gain from silencing anyone you don't agree with?

Bridge93

The FAI has turnover of over 50m. A 100k cheque that is properly debited and credited wouldn’t show up in their tests. Even if it did, unless it was labeled ‘Cheque from John Delaney CEO’ which presumably it wasn’t if no one knew about it then expecting it to pop up is a bit much. The cheque and it’s amount are the accounting problem per se. it’s the lack of disclosures required by Company law and IAASA

Arghus

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

Go and lie in your piss, I was replying to a post clamouring for cards like everyone has to have the same viewpoint.

I don't agree with any of these pro Delaney posters but what's to gain from silencing anyone you don't agree with?

But, I wasn't clamouring for cards?

jmayo

Chardee MacDennis wrote: »

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

A bit like the FAI then

D14Rugby wrote: »

Still there

John Delaney isn't part of the FAI anymore. He is on gardening leave, or whatever the description is

Ehh is this gardening leave like that experienced by teachers, gardai, etc where you still get paid but don't have to show up for work ?

OldMrBrennan83

I can't understand how it's all still so unclear at this stage. When they can get away with nobody actually knowing Delaney's situation under this much scrutiny from all angles then God only knows what they've got away with over the years.

Skylinehead

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

Go and lie in your piss, I was replying to a post clamouring for cards like everyone has to have the same viewpoint.

I don't agree with any of these pro Delaney posters but what's to gain from silencing anyone you don't agree with?

What cards? There is no cards. You're arguing nothing here.

Mod: Now like I said, immediately stop. That language is sure to get you banned, I'm sure you'll scream opinion at me afterwards.

Chancer3001

Bridge93 wrote: »

The FAI has turnover of over 50m. A 100k cheque that is properly debited and credited wouldn’t show up in their tests. Even if it did, unless it was labeled ‘Cheque from John Delaney CEO’ which presumably it wasn’t if no one knew about it then expecting it to pop up is a bit much. The cheque and it’s amount are the accounting problem per se. it’s the lack of disclosures required by Company law and IAASA

How would it not show up!? Sure people have access to.him spending 65 euro on petrol in MHR shop...

100k is substantial
The auditors should have picked it up

OldMrBrennan83

Nixonbot wrote: »

What cards? There is no cards. You're arguing nothing here.

Mod: Now like I said, immediately stop. That language is sure to get you banned, I'm sure you'll scream opinion at me afterwards.

If you're a mod then you should be showing a little more decorum than your initial reply in my direction rather than trying to goad such language.

Skylinehead

Nixonbot wrote: »

What cards? There is no cards.

Ok now it isn't true.

Chancer3001

I think he missed the word "IF" initially

Irishmale0399

Chancer3001 wrote: »

How would it not show up!? Sure people have access to.him spending 65 euro on petrol in MHR shop...

100k is substantial
The auditors should have picked it up

It depends on what the auditors are shown....I know companies I worked for in the past showed the balance at the end of the year, that was then cross checked to the balance sheet and that was it. The auditors dont look at every transaction f not instructed to do so and in many cases would only look for spot checks on certain items.
As I understand it the FAI were hiding behind the 24 accounts, each one with a different use and then they probably just supplied the auditor with the balances and the accounts for state funding which had to be detailed audited.
It looks very much as if the FAI were using LOI UEFA monies to keep afloat and were living it up on it whilst JD was out at grassroots level handing out tax payers money to keep his image.

Zebra3

Chancer3001 wrote: »

How would it not show up!? Sure people have access to.him spending 65 euro on petrol in MHR shop...

100k is substantial
The auditors should have picked it up

Yeh, maybe the auditors are in the wrong too.

Maybe.

But it won’t detract from the pile of stinking brown stuff that Delaney is in.

howiya

Chancer3001 wrote: »

How would it not show up!? Sure people have access to.him spending 65 euro on petrol in MHR shop...

100k is substantial
The auditors should have picked it up

Please don't conflate the Sunday Times having JD's credit card bill with an audit. They're two different things.

Re the €100k, under the companies act the obligation is on the company to declare the transaction. It's that simple.

Beasty

Let me give you my perspective on governance generally in Irish sport, Firstly to give a bit of background. I've been on both sides of the audit fence, albeit 30 years since I actually audited a business. Since then I've been on the receiving end of 30+ statutory auditors

I have also been on the national governance committee of a major Irish sport. That was on the back of getting involved in the removal of a major Irish sporting administrator (albeit he was then the global head of the sport in question - hence it's not too difficult to work out which one, and there is plenty of evidence on this site of my involvement in that particular campaign)

With a small number of exceptions, governance within major sports in Ireland has been generally poor. Most sports are starting to get their act together, and without doubt football has been the last major sport to turn its attention to this

Throughout the campaign I was involved in there were countless die-hard supporters of the sporting administrator in question. I know many of those supporters very well. I have a lot of respect for them. Their apparently blind faith in the individual in question had long-standing roots. It was difficult to debate with them, but equally it was very important to allow them to have their say. That helped avoid a perception there was a lynch mob out to get the individual.

I am still very close friends to those individuals. I still have a lot of respect for them. We have agreed to differ on the individual in question, but I do feel the sport has moved on since he was removed. There remains a lot to do over half a decade later, but it continues to head in the right direction

Continuity in the governing body is important. Removal of those opposed to change is moreso. This is all about the FAI, an it's Board and governance structures. Whatever failings there may have been at audit level are certainly important, but irrelevant in determining how he sport moves forward

In the meantime healthy debate is important. It will help inform the decisions to be taken, but also to highlight the problems that have arisen. I have no issue with anyone attempting to defend Delaney. I have a very different view, but do not believe anyone should be silenced in this discussion.

All of this is me posting as a user, and not as a site Administrator. However I would just add I am aware of the frustration of some over us allowing dissention in this thread. That is not as a result of any conscious action at mod, admin or office level. It's simply allowing people to have their say - that's what healthy debate is all about.

Ramble over:)

Beasty

Beasty wrote: »

It's simply allowing people to have their say - that's what healthy debate is all about.

The posts I objected to were the "you're all thick" and "you have your heads up your arses" type efforts.

I do not agree that they contribute to healthy debate. But nothing happened when they were reported. I'm putting that down to bad modding, not encouraging healthy debate.

They wouldn't be tolerated on the ManU or Liverpool threads.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

The posts I objected to are outlined in my reports, all of which have been roundly ignored by mods and admins.

There was a similar poster on the Brexit thread in Politics recently, hammering the same point, over and over, and ignoring any and all questions they didn't like or couldn't give a credible answer to.

It's fúcking infuriating, but it generates clicks and content, so a blind eye is turned.

Standard.

Seems it's ok for an Admin to "post as a user" and talk about the moderation of a thread, on that thread, so I'm following that lead here.