Not a good look. I wonder did he go because this was going to come to light?
Threadbans:
CGI_Livia_Soprano
Sorolla
Stevie2001
Rothco
realdanbreen
Paterson Jerins
Aldo006
HBC08
Clay Shaw
Pintman Paddy Losty
northknife
StevenToast
ButtersSuki
Bobson Dugnutt
It was an arrangement made with the total amount in mind, not some yearly agreement - RTE agreed to underwrite the total amount, that isn't written off by some lowly finance guy
But was always one of them! Born into it.
It is hard to prove. As much as it pains me to say it, performing as agreed in the contract you have with RTE cannot, by definition, be considered disreputable (in the eyes of the organisation).
You are taking the total amount over a number of years, in any one year its 75k,in the context of 330m it's immaterial
Ah right, a quick Google returned this.
The better your auditor knows your organisation, the easier the process can be – but in some cases, that comes at the cost of objectivity and challenge. Some people would say the best approach is to change your auditor on a regular basis, avoiding any over-familiarity by starting from scratch each time.
But they should be made aware of 100's of thousands of euros deals made especially when RTE are guaranteeing the payment (for some mad reason)
His actions or actions that he was and is a party to have fright the organization into disrepute. That is not difficult to prove, it’s obvious.
Whether they have a get out clause in their contact on this only they know, but knowing RTÉ I suspect not.
It's considered good practice to rotate auditors
Is it normal for companies to bounce between auditing companies, or is there anything to be read into the fact Deloitte audited their 2020 accounts and they are now using Grant Thorton?
They were certainly known to the finance department, who so you think raised the credit note for Renault for example, I've already explained why it's nonsense to assume the board are aware of every small transaction.
Ah no, that referendum deserved to be rejected as they were over reaching imo.
Having power to call anyone, refuse the possibility of bringing in legal representation while still maintaining this Dail privilege made it a very lob sided proposal.
From past experience of those committees, they don’t exactly stay within the terms of those committees and the only recourse is the Committee of Members Interests…..maybe Angela Kerins legal case will finally be resolved and give the rest of us plebs some recourse from a parliament who can say anything they like and backed up by taxpayers money to keep the status quo.
Exactly - it's not a barter, its a sale - here's a few hundred grand and in exchange we get "free" advertising
I really hope Revenue are watching all this with glee
Were the Tubridy transactions in the barter account known to the Board or finance department before this week?
A simple yes or no will do.
You have completely misunderstood what they meant by that.
Probably too little too late, damage limitation all round..
Mr. Photo Op himself, we’ll see
As much as I dislike both RTE and Tubridy and even though I am thoroughly enjoying this story and as much as I'd like to see them all gone, they won't get him on that. It would be extremely difficult to prove that tubridy is bringing RTE into disrepute because he holds a contract with RTE that RTE freely agreed to. The only person to whom that charge could stick it the person or people who signed and approved the deal.
Get a grip. Your mates Tubridy and NK are in deep doo-doo!
Bartering for a public broadcaster which is funded by the licence fee is much different from a private company.
This practice shouldn't be allowed at RTE.
Stop deflecting. Anyone reading this thread can see I've shown you multiple times evidence of two sets of accounts. The RTE Board have said they will bring the barter account within the finance account.
Barter account and finance account? How many accounts is that?
As bartering is fully taxable per Revenue.ie, I’d love to get the low down on why it is used here in broadcasting. I’m sure I’m missing something, would love to get better informed.
A barter 'account ' has nothing to do with the set of Accounts that are audited / disclosed etc
Those accounts are more commonly referred to as the financial statements.
So, one was the financial account and the second was the barter account.
I always understood barter to mean the exchange of goods or services, RTE seem to think that it includes the exchange of money too, is that correct?
A barter account is a common practice in advertising and marketing businesses where goods and services are traded through an intermediary company which charges a fee for its services.
@batman75 wrote: "I grew up in the era of Gay, Mike Murphy, Brian O'Farrell, John Bowman, Pat Kenny (Radio) and Gerry Ryan all consummate broadcasters of genuine intellectual depth. Now we have D'Arcy, O'Callaghan, Tubridy and Duffy jesus wept. How standards have plummeted."
Unfortunately, When there's a compulsory licence fee paid to RTE for anyone who wants to watch any television even if it is not RTE, then quality in RTE itself inevitably deteriorates over time. This will accelerate when the new broadcasting fee replacing the license comes into force as even those who don't watch TV will have to pay.
If the costs are documented by the finance department, there's nothing too wrong there, at least they are documented and in the accounts. Big difference to off the books transactions that no-one in the finance department or most people on the Board knew nothing about. The latter are hidden transactions.
The misinformation in this thread is frightening to be honest
What evidence of there being two sets of accounts is there?
That’s my specific question to the poster I was addressing.
You trying condescension is very funny, sorry you haven't a clue, but feel free to let me know when you are proven correct on this poimt, spoiler alert it won't happen.
RTE have costs of about 330 million annually give or take, I'm willing to bet that there are lots of payments the board know nothing about, not would I expect them to, again there has been no suggestion of fraudulent activities anywhere except this thread.
Should have been there to start with - this was an underhanded attempt to hide financial transactions to the detriment of licence payers
Every 10 years the licence fee award should be up for review. If Virgin Media could pitch for that money they should be able - perhaps allow the public to vote on it?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/1751471ae521095b085946f3afd00e1d.svg)
