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
O'Keefe is responsible for her actions as CFO. Collins is responsible for his actions as CFO. There isn't a hierarchy or responsibility. Both failed in their duties. But the fact is that until this morning, only one of them could be fired for it.
It'll be a different matter if there's a criminal element to it, but that's not how things stand at the moment.
You must be exhausted.
If Collins brazens it out (which is what I would do if I was in his shoes), they might push him sideways but it's very hard to push someone out the door if they don't want to go. Tis fairly hard to be fired from a semi-state body. Incompetence in your job usually isn't enough to get you sacked from the public service or from a semi-state body. Although he might find it hard to get the backing of the Unions on this one.
There is 100% a hierarchy of responsibility or blame. The primary responsibility is with Forbes, GOL and O'Keefe for maintaining an off the books unaudited account. In terms of a criminal element, its up to the gardai to decide, but they cannot say there hasn't been a complaint to them. Paddy Cosgrave complained! No response yet from the gardai. Or revenue for that matter.
Lol, yet another one. So obvious haha.
..
Again, with your use of "primary responsibility", you're arguing for a hierarchy of responsibility, which entirely misses the point. There isn't one. O'Keefe and Collins are independently responsible for their own tenure as CFO.
Collins isn't responsible for creating or maintaining the barter account and its dubious use. The others are accountable for that.
He is, however, fully responsible and accountable for his actions that fell well below those expected of him as CFO once he was informed of it.
No. Collins admitted to signing them off and said in hindsight he should have queried them more fully.
Could you at least familiarize yourself with the full facts on this before you continue arguing with anyone who has?
Allowed to walk off into the sunset with a nice little lump sum which amounted to €120k. Nice if you can get it.
It seems to me that Collins knew the explanation given by Forbes was BS. Id say he passed the info on to the auditors in such a manner that they would know he didn’t accept it. He knew that once he told them what she said they would not accept it and would take it further. So in a roundabout way he got the issue highlighted. I’m not exonerating him but I’d say Forbes was a bully and this was his best way of dealing with it
Do you know one thing he’s responsible for re. the barter accounts?
Not ensuring they were only used for goods and services (as is the norm), and then allowing numerous top up fee payments to Ryan Tubridy to go through them.
And that’s enough to get him sacked.
What has Garrett Tubridy got to do with anything?
Even if O’Leary was solely responsible for the barter account(s) that/they are part of the wider and fuller company accounts. And guess whose responsibility it is to ensure that year’s accounts are compliant? Collins.
It is, last CFO is just as incompetent is my point
The question is though what did Collins do wrong. The account was hidden from him and he didn't approve the transactions in it - that was GOL and her dept.
The only thing he is "guilty" of is accepting Forbes word that it, the transaction, was for consultancy services when it wasn't after Deloitte flagged it. He should have smelled the BS from Forbes but seemingly didn't. In any case it didn't make a difference as the auditors didn't believe the excuse anyway.
That and the brutal performance in the committee's. If he was as assured in his performance as O'Keefe was, we might think a little different even if the substance was the same.
I would also say Forbes is a bully. Siun was no match for her by any stretch.
The CFO didn’t sign off and pay the €75,000 payments. It was commercial director and Director General who approved/paid the transactions. between them and NK was the creation of “consultancy” on the invoices.
The CFO reiterated that the invoice didn’t come across his desk for approval and that was only made of it when Deloitte raised concerns with it and that he then asked DG for explanation and relayed it back to Deloitte.
They probably feel at home!
If financial transactions pre the current CFO are found to be illegal, I expect O'Keefe could face charges. She was putting up a stern defence last week in order to take eyes off her.
Look, with respect, it’s been explained to you from a multitude of perspectives by a multitude of people. If you don’t get it now, I don’t think you will.
Collins is responsible only for what he has done in this matter, but equally he’s also responsible for what he had not done re. His duties re. financial governance and compliance. It’s the latter that’s going to the issue for him more than the former.
When discussing this with a family member (who is a medic) last week they said “if he (Collins) was a doctor he’d be struck off”. It’s a good analogy.
Only if he knew. If it was concealed from him then how could he be responsible? The attempt to deceive was both for internal and external purposes
Pat's pay was public afaik. The whole point of the debacle is the subterfuge.
What I mean by signing off is of he signed off the company accounts - which he did - that covers all accounts (incl. barter).
Again, this has been covered.
When you sign off on accounts, you sign that "you believe" that they are accurate to the best of your knowledge. If there has been a deliberate attempt to conceal information from the CFO then they are not culpable.
If you are able to conceal hundreds of thousands of euros worth of payments from your CFO then you should immediately sack your CFO.
Leaving the sinking ship?
i think Tubs will be vindicated. he has done nothing wrong and the orchestrated moral outrage is nothing short of a witch-hunt.
the biggest and perhaps only sin committed has been to try and hide these payments. that was a silly thing to do. it's time for openness & transparency, especially as they are spending the public's money. i think we must continue to support our National Broadcaster, who have served us so well since its foundation.
So, if the CFO is “at it” or incompetent where does the buck stop?
that is as relevant as saying one grey-haired man supporting another. not everything has to be viewed in terms of money. i feel sorry for you, if that is how you view the world.
Vindicated in your eyes perhaps but I’d be skeptical of the idea than he can rehabilitate his public image back to where it once was before this fiasco.
His draw as a personality is not based on good looks or sense of humour. It’s about being trusting and caring. That’s taken a mortal blow over the past few weeks.
