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

Cyrus · 17-04-2019 08:42AM

givyjoe wrote: »

See above, for JD's career path. Delaney with his obvious accounting knowledge should have long known of the problems with the books, AND taken action. You would have thought that the need for a 100k loan might prompt JD to take a closer look, but no no, it's all the external auditors fault? Like I said originally, youre looking for a way to to deflect away from Delaney.

The responsibility for improper books is with the fai's accountants and JD, not the external auditors.

so he doesnt have an accounting degree have we established that? he claims to have done the fae exams but no one has confirmed that.

i'm not looking to deflect from delaney at all i couldnt care less about him, what i hate is slathering at the mouth witch hunts.

my point about the external auditors is about them not about delaney, but you wont be able to see that.

Beechwoodspark · 17-04-2019 08:50AM

eoin Hand very impressive on RTÉ just now

He wouldn’t be the worst shout to head up the fai for the next few years.

givyjoe · 17-04-2019 08:51AM

Cyrus wrote: »

so he doesnt have an accounting degree have we established that? he claims to have done the fae exams but no one has confirmed that.

i'm not looking to deflect from delaney at all i couldnt care less about him, what i hate is slathering at the mouth witch hunts.

my point about the external auditors is about them not about delaney, but you wont be able to see that.

We've established you don't seem to have a baloobas what you're talking about. As for slathering witch hunt, get a grip of yourself. Expecting accountability at senior executive level of the FAI, is hardly a witch hunt.

The responsibility for this mess is at the top levels of the FAI, not the external auditors. If the auditors did make a mistake (rather than just ok'ing the dodgy books they were presented with), they are at least doing the correct this now. Same can't be said for Delaney, remember him? You know, the topic of THIS THREAD. . Set up a thread on the auditors if you feel so strongly about them.

You're looking to shift the blame away from the man ultimately responsible, but you won't be able to see that :rolleyes:

Cyrus · 17-04-2019 08:57AM

givyjoe wrote: »

We've established you don't seem to have a baloobas what you're talking about.

when did we establish that?

mr accounting degree?

you dont seem to understand how an audit works either, you dont just accept the books you are presented with, this is deloitte ffs

johnnyryan89 · 17-04-2019 08:59AM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

eoin Hand very impressive on RTÉ just now

He wouldn’t be the worst shout to head up the fai for the next few years.

What experience has Eoin Hand got of being a CEO of a multi million organisation?

Chancer3001 · 17-04-2019 09:06AM

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.

givyjoe · 17-04-2019 09:08AM

Cyrus wrote: »

when did we establish that?

mr accounting degree?

you dont seem to understand how an audit works either, you dont just accept the books you are presented with, this is deloitte ffs

The guy passed the exams required to be a chartered accountant, are you seriously telling us that he doesn't give him the knowledge required to ID a problem with the books, a simple yes or no will do.

He was the CEO of the organisation, do you seriously think he wasn't aware, or shouldn't have been aware of the problems?

Tell us how an audit works so and your background. Maybe you can also tell us why the responsibility for these potentially fraudulent books isn't on the FAI and JD, and is instead on the auditors? Let's not forget that JD gave a loan that he and the 3 board members, wasn't properly accounted for.

Cyrus · 17-04-2019 09:14AM

givyjoe wrote: »

The guy passed the exams required to be a chartered accountant, are you seriously telling us that he doesn't give him the knowledge required to ID a problem with the books, a simple yes or no will do.

He was the CEO of the organisation, do you seriously think he wasn't aware, or shouldn't have been aware of the problems?

Tell us how an audit works so and your background. Maybe you can also tell us why the responsibility for these potentially fraudulent books isn't on the FAI and JD, and is instead on the auditors? Let's not forget that JD gave a loan that he and the 3 board members, wasn't properly accounted for.

he doesnt have an accounting degree which is what you claimed, also there is no proof he passed the chartered accounting exams? you are hardly taking him at his word now are you :P

suffice to say i understand how an audit works better than you do. and i never said the responsibility for these potentially 'incomplete books and records' is with the auditors, you are making stuff up now.

also who said the loan wasnt properly accounted for?

it was properly disclosed, but i believe it was properly account for.

amcalester · 17-04-2019 09:14AM

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.

I thought the SI money was for grants to grassroots etc, are you saying that the FAI used it for cash flow purposes? i.e. clear down the overdraft/loans!

You're right that the auditors should have spotted the irregularities, but that doesn't absolve JD or the FAI from their responsibilities to run the FAI properly.

DeanAustin · 17-04-2019 09:22AM

I was one of the ones willing to give Delaney a chance but he has no credibility left.

It is not credible for a man in his position as the CEO, nor as a man who claims expertise in finance, to oversee an organisation that doesn’t keep proper accounting records. That’s a dereliction of duty.

It becomes less credible when he says he was surprised he had to bail the FAI out to time of 100k in 2017. Even supposing that is true, he then had a duty to ensure that situation was corrected and he clearly didn’t. That’s incompetence.

I fear there is something a bit more underhand going on but either way, Delaneys position is utterly untenable and his reputation and credibility should be in ruins.

givyjoe · 17-04-2019 09:23AM

Cyrus wrote: »

he doesnt have an accounting degree which is what you claimed, also there is no proof he passed the chartered accounting exams? you are hardly taking him at his word now are you :P

suffice to say i understand how an audit works better than you do. and i never said the responsibility for these potentially 'incomplete books and records' is with the auditors, you are making stuff up now.

also who said the loan wasnt properly accounted for?

it was properly disclosed, but i believe it was properly account for.

Not at all suffice to say, please give us an insight into your credentials. Hardly going to ID yourself by doing so. You believe the loan was properly accounted for? Who's word are you taking for this...?! The FAI Board, JD, the auditors

:pac:?!

You've been whinging for the last number of posts about the auditors, and have not once offered any criticism of JD in this regard. Who do you think is responsible for the improper book keeping at the FAI?

Cyrus · 17-04-2019 09:37AM

givyjoe wrote: »

Not at all suffice to say, please give us an insight into your credentials. Hardly going to ID yourself by doing so. You believe the loan was properly accounted for? Who's word are you taking for this...?! The FAI Board, JD, the auditors :pac:?!

You've been whinging for the last number of posts about the auditors, and have not once offered any criticism of JD in this regard. Who do you think is responsible for the improper book keeping at the FAI?

you will just have to take my word for it wont you. what do you want my cv?

whinging ? jaysus

i havent seen any suggestion the loan was improperly accounted for, whats your information to the contrary?

the people who are responsible for keeping proper books of account are the cfo/finance director and his / her team. The CEO is ultimately responsible as the head of finance reports to them. Make sense?

how can you hold the auditors responsible, makes no sense? what i make them responsible for is signing off on audits where they now say proper books of account arent kept. its one or the other lads, they are trying to have it both ways.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch · 17-04-2019 09:39AM

Chancer3001 wrote: »

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

This is not the story that was told to the JOC last week. Why are you making stuff up?

givyjoe · 17-04-2019 09:48AM

Cyrus wrote: »

you will just have to take my word for it wont you. what do you want my cv?

whinging ? jaysus

i havent seen any suggestion the loan was improperly accounted for, whats your information to the contrary?

the people who are responsible for keeping proper books of account are the cfo/finance director and his / her team. The CEO is ultimately responsible as the head of finance reports to them. Make sense?

how can you hold the auditors responsible, makes no sense? what i make them responsible for is signing off on audits where they now say proper books of account arent kept. its one or the other lads, they are trying to have it both ways.

Yes, whinging. You described, I presume this thread, as a slathering witch hunt.. don't tell me you've gotten precious all of a sudden?

Glad we agree that ultimate responsibility lies with the CEO. What do you think should happen to the person ultimately responsible for this fiasco? Be sacked perhaps?

Chancer3001 · 17-04-2019 09:50AM

amcalester wrote: »

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.

I thought the SI money was for grants to grassroots etc, are you saying that the FAI used it for cash flow purposes? i.e. clear down the overdraft/loans!

You're right that the auditors should have spotted the irregularities, but that doesn't absolve JD or the FAI from their responsibilities to run the FAI properly.

Well, if delaneys 100k went to grassroots and SI repaid delaney....the same amount of money goes to grassroots

Cyrus · 17-04-2019 09:51AM

givyjoe wrote: »

Yes, whinging. You described, I presume this thread, as a slathering witch hunt.. don't tell me you've gotten precious all of a sudden?

Glad we agree that ultimate responsibility lies with the CEO. What do you think should happen to the person ultimately responsible for this fiasco? Be sacked perhaps?

personally i tend to wait for some actual proof rather than a slathering witch hunt.

all we have at the moment is an allegation from people who have given clean audit opinions previously. im very interested to see how the allegation is framed in a way that absolves them from any blame in issuing clean audit opinions.

blanch152 · 17-04-2019 09:53AM

Cyrus wrote: »

when did we establish that?

mr accounting degree?

you dont seem to understand how an audit works either, you dont just accept the books you are presented with, this is deloitte ffs

You have a point that the auditors have some responsibility and shouldn't have accepted the books that they were presented with. However, this only creates an extra problem for Delaney.

If the problems were not immediately obvious to the auditors, something must have been hidden. The person ultimately responsible for ensuring that the auditors got a clear full picture from the off is the CEO.

Beasty · 17-04-2019 09:53AM

Chancer3001 wrote: »

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

Just to be absolutely clear, in any organisation like the FAI the buck stops with the Board.

Yes auditors have a responsibility to check things, but that is to provide some assurance the Board and organisation are doing things correctly. Typically they will look at controls in place and check them through sampling. They do not and indeed cannot check absolutely everything (and have no responsibility to do so).

If the auditors have acted incorrectly there are structures in place to deal with that through their own governing body and relevant regulatory organisations

It is for the Board to put in place structures and controls to avoid exactly the sort of farce currently surrounding the FAI

Beasty · 17-04-2019 09:56AM

Chancer3001 wrote: »

Well, if delaneys 100k went to grassroots and SI repaid delaney....the same amount of money goes to grassroots

That is actually irrelevant. The issue here is the process, and it seems to me there were little in the way of internal controls and governance procedures required for any organisation, let alone one that secures taxpayer funding.

Cyrus · 17-04-2019 09:59AM

blanch152 wrote: »

You have a point that the auditors have some responsibility and shouldn't have accepted the books that they were presented with. However, this only creates an extra problem for Delaney.

If the problems were not immediately obvious to the auditors, something must have been hidden. The person ultimately responsible for ensuring that the auditors got a clear full picture from the off is the CEO.

technically yes, but in reality how many CEOs have any involvement in an audit barring maybe a closing meeting?

Most CFOs tend to avoid them as well really.

blanch152 · 17-04-2019 10:00AM

Cyrus wrote: »

technically yes, but in reality how many CEOs have any involvement in an audit barring maybe a closing meeting?

Most CFOs tend to avoid them as well really.

Technically yes is good enough for me, he has to go.

Cyrus · 17-04-2019 10:05AM

blanch152 wrote: »

Technically yes is good enough for me, he has to go.

if the charge of improper books is proven i agree.

Chancer3001 · 17-04-2019 10:09AM

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

Beasty · 17-04-2019 10:21AM

Chancer3001 wrote: »

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

That's correct but largely irrelevant. It's the Board's behaviour here that matters

EDIT
Suggesting that somehow it's the auditor's fault is akin to suggesting that crime is the fault of the Gardai

Chancer3001 · 17-04-2019 10:24AM

The last 2 pages have been about auditing. So no its not irrelevant.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch · 17-04-2019 10:28AM

Chancer3001 wrote: »

The last 2 pages have been about auditing. So no its not irrelevant.

I asked you a question a few posts up, why are you ignoring it?

Nesta99 · 17-04-2019 10:34AM

Chancer3001 wrote: »

So as regards delaneys viewpoint it was grand.

I'm sure his viewpoint was grand, 6 grand in cash withdrawals on the company credit card over the 6 month period looked at!

Chancer3001 · 17-04-2019 10:39AM

Faith Some Loop wrote: »

Chancer3001 wrote: »

The last 2 pages have been about auditing. So no its not irrelevant.

I asked you a question a few posts up, why are you ignoring it?

Didnt see it

givyjoe · 17-04-2019 10:41AM

Cyrus wrote: »

personally i tend to wait for some actual proof rather than a slathering witch hunt.

all we have at the moment is an allegation from people who have given clean audit opinions previously. im very interested to see how the allegation is framed in a way that absolves them from any blame in issuing clean audit opinions.

They filed a H4 report with the CRO, this isn't merely an allegation. They have established that the FAI are not keeping proper books, by reviewing the books. What proof will satisfy you?

You claim to have knowledge of auditing, so wouldn't this be a fairly simple black and white case of either proper books are being kept or they're not? Surely an auditor would be opening themselves up to litigation for doing so incorrectly, owing to reputational and financial damage such a filing would do.

Do you honestly believe its more likely that they're making a mistake now, as opposed to making a mistake when they initially reviewed the accounts?

EDIT: This article does a pretty good job explaining the problems with the FAI's accounts

Cyrus · 17-04-2019 10:45AM

givyjoe wrote: »

They filed a H4 report with the CRO, this isn't merely an allegation. They have established that the FAI are not keeping proper books, by reviewing the books. What proof will satisfy you?

You claim to have knowledge of auditing, so wouldn't this be a fairly simple black and white case of either proper books are being kept or they're not? Surely an auditor would be opening themselves up to litigation for doing so incorrectly, owing to reputational and financial damage such a filing would do.

Do you honestly believe its more likely that they're making a mistake now, as opposed to making a mistake when they initially reviewed the accounts?

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.

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

Comments