Olympic Council fella Pat Hickey Arrested in Rio

Water John

So who got the money for the extra 'family tickets' that should not have been resold? THG shouldn't have got them. It did not go through OCI accounts.
They must have been given away, free!!!

The future contract was signed in Jan 2016. Some one's pension plan???

maudgonner

THG have been refused authorisation for the 2018 games.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0814/89...ticket-report/

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Water John

But they are signed up for other games until 2026.

ThisRegard

Water John wrote: »

But they are signed up for other games until 2026.

That doesn't mean they'll be authorised by the games organisers to sell tickets on their behalf.

Water John

I presume the deal was done, at a discount, considering the risk it would carry.

Bit like a 'fence'.

maudgonner

Water John wrote: »

I presume the deal was done, at a discount, considering the risk it would carry.

Bit like a 'fence'.

A 'discount' may mean something different to Pat Hickey than it does to the rest of us.

Muahahaha

Has there been any date set for the Brazilian trial yet? I see the Brazilian embassy is just there off Harcourt St not too far from Coppers, Id give the bould Pat a lift there myself from Castleknock if he needs it.

Muahahaha

Strazdas wrote: »

Were they selling on the tickets at a huge mark up ie. effectively acting as black market ticket touts?

iirc a CEO of a major Brazilian firm paid out 100k+ on a hospitality package for 20 odd employees. They were supposed to get a speech from a well known Olympian who didnt show up and then neither did their bus to the stadium. When they got there themselves the seats were up in the gods. Basically a high level scam but sure Pat wouldnt know anything about that !

nice_guy80

So Pat was voluntarily doing the job for 60 grand a year??

Water John

Did I see a spike on that to €350K in 2015?

maudgonner

He didn't draw it down for a good while, then drew down five years worth in one lump sum in 2015.

Deise Vu

maudgonner wrote: »

THG have been refused authorisation for the 2018 games.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0814/89...ticket-report/

Thank God there is still Pro10 to step into the breach.

Water John

I think the best people to look into this now are the CAB. As the judge was not allowed, go there. Follow the money trail. Who paid for what to whom. I'm sure some of those who, in good faith bought those lousy corporate packages would be willing to testify.

Hermy

Water John wrote: »

I think the best people to look into this now are the CAB. As the judge was not allowed, go there. Follow the money trail. Who paid for what to whom. I'm sure some of those who, in good faith bought those lousy corporate packages would be willing to testify.

No, it seems if you're too high up the food chain you get a tribunal.
The guards only look after the little people.:(

Realt Dearg Sec

And tribunals are great because nobody really gets punished but loads of lads get to make a rake of money at the little people's expense. Huzzah!

jojofizzio

maudgonner wrote: »

He didn't draw it down for a good while, then drew down five years worth in one lump sum in 2015.

Was he on the dole all along?or does he have another "job" that he gets a proper wage from?

maudgonner

He has a family business, an estate agents, which his children were running.

He also had a role with the IOC. I can't remember whether there was a salary attached to that but there were very generous expense allowances.

take everything

Muahahaha wrote: »

Has there been any date set for the Brazilian trial yet? I see the Brazilian embassy is just there off Harcourt St not too far from Coppers, Id give the bould Pat a lift there myself from Castleknock if he needs it.

What are the odds of him going back to Brazil to face trial. Pat said that he didn't get too involved in the Moran report thing as he didn't want it to jeopardise his Brazilian trial.

So he's obviously raring to go back.
Or could Pat be having us on.

Seth Brundle

take everything wrote: »

What are the odds of him going back to Brazil to face trial. Pat said that he didn't get too involved in the Moran report thing as he didn't want it to jeopardise his Brazilian trial.

So he's obviously raring to go back.
Or could Pat be having us on.

Ash sure he's raring to go back to Brazil and prove his innocence.
Unfortunately his dodgy ticker will probably force him into staying here and not getting to show everyone that he isn't a criminal!
How unfortunate!

The Talking Bread

take everything wrote: »

What are the odds of him going back to Brazil to face trial. Pat said that he didn't get too involved in the Moran report thing as he didn't want it to jeopardise his Brazilian trial.

So he's obviously raring to go back.
Or could Pat be having us on.

I will give you 100/1 and hope you get carried away!

Water John

I presume the trial goes ahead, whether Pat turns up or not. Possibly claim he wouldn't get a fair hearing.

ahlookit

He hasn't gone away you know....

Mr Hickey, who resigned last year after 27 years as OCI president following his arrest as part of an investigation into alleged ticket touting at the time of the Rio Olympics, this week said he was looking forward “in due course to resuming my international Olympic duties” once legal proceedings in Brazil are complete.
Sarah Keane, who was elected OCI president in February, said that if Mr Hickey returns to his role on the International Olympic Committee he would be entitled act as an ex-officio member of the Irish Olympic movement.
She said the current board would not be comfortable with his return to the OCI.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/concern-in-oci-over-potential-return-of-pat-hickey-to-board-1.3190725

nice_guy80

he's like a giraffe
some neck on him

Muahahaha

take everything wrote: »

What are the odds of him going back to Brazil to face trial. Pat said that he didn't get too involved in the Moran report thing as he didn't want it to jeopardise his Brazilian trial.

So he's obviously raring to go back.
Or could Pat be having us on.

Well the Brazilian prosecutor is definitely raring to have him back, wants to slap him with 10-20 years in the slammer too :eek:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/report-absolutely-did-not-clear-anything-brazil-prosecutor-says-he-will-pursue-pat-hickey-36054526.html

In a statement Mr Hickey said there were significant inaccuracies in the Moran report but added that it cleared him of wrong-doing.
"I am pleased to see my reputation and good name have been cleared in that there is no allegation of criminality or financial impropriety."

However Mr Kac told the Mail on Sunday at the weekend that he would pursue the case and send an alert to Interpol if Mr Hickey fails to show for his trial.
"He [Mr Hickey] said he would go for the court hearing. The compromise [when he was granted permission to leave Brazil after €410,000 bond was paid] was he would come [back].

"We think the hearing will be in six to 12 months. There will be no jury. A judge will make the decision. If he is found guilty I will ask for him to get 10 to 20 years in prison.

Realt Dearg Sec

Ten to twenty years for touting tickets? Me ar5e.

Ulysses Gaze

ahlookit wrote: »

He hasn't gone away you know....




https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/concern-in-oci-over-potential-return-of-pat-hickey-to-board-1.3190725

Neck like a Jockey's Bollocks this fella.

Wildlife Actor

So the OCI are meeting tonight and looking at ways not to have Hickey representing Ireland on the IOC. Meanwhile PAC want the judge to reopen his inquiry into how the thg Contract was made to 2026 without board approval. Meanwhile thg have been refused accreditation for Winter Olympics 2018. Meanwhile the OCI Chair thinks that the thg Contract is binding.

Can someone please explain to the OCI that if you contract with someone to manage ticketing for a 16 year period, there's an implied duty on the part of the service provider not to behave in such a way as to lose their licence to trade and that if they do render performance of their end of the bargain impossible, OCI can not only walk away from the contract but they can also get damages for any additional expense incurred in getting a replacement. The only thing that could rule out that implied term is an express clause saying that thg can lose their accreditation and yet hold onto the contract. I'll eat my hat if it's in there but even if it was, a court would refuse to enforce it on public policy grounds.

Of course there is also the question of hickey 's authority to contract on behalf of the OCI without board approval but I imagine that that has been looked at.

ArmaniJeanss

Also the lovable scamp Hickey doesn't want to go back to Brazil for trial, wants to do it over Skype. His lawyers seem to think it's possible, I'm dubious of the Brazilian authorities agreeing myself.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/hickey-wont-appear-in-rio-ticketing-trial-dfbmvxmwl
http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1054630/hickey-will-not-have-to-return-to-brazil-for-trial-lawyers-claim

Water John

The not so 'lovable scamp' side of Pat Hickey is what many remember. He was a bully.

Wildlife Actor

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Also the lovable scamp Hickey doesn't want to go back to Brazil for trial, wants to do it over Skype. His lawyers seem to think it's possible, I'm dubious of the Brazilian authorities agreeing myself.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/hickey-wont-appear-in-rio-ticketing-trial-dfbmvxmwl
http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1054630/hickey-will-not-have-to-return-to-brazil-for-trial-lawyers-claim

o
Reminds me if the Brendan Behan quote:

"When I came back to Dublin, I was courtmartialled in my absence and sentenced to death in my absence, so I said they could shoot me in my absence."

Doc07

[quote="Meanwhile the OCI Chair thinks that the thg Contract is binding.

Can someone please explain to the OCI that if you contract with someone to manage ticketing for a 16 year period, there's an implied duty on the part of the service provider not to behave in such a way as to lose their licence to trade and that if they do render performance of their end of the bargain impossible, OCI can not only walk away from the contract but they can also get damages for any additional expense incurred in getting a replacement. The only thing that could rule out that implied term is an express clause saying that thg can lose their accreditation and yet hold onto the contract. I'll eat my hat if it's in there but even if it was, a court would refuse to enforce it on public policy grounds.

Of course there is also the question of hickey 's authority to contract on behalf of the OCI without board approval but I imagine that that has been looked at.[/quote]

This is an excellent post. The 'contract' with THG should become null and void with immediate effect. The new head of the OCI should publish this statement and secure a new ticket agent (or tender for one etc) immediately.
If I signed a long term contract with a solicitor and the solicitor lost his license to practice law I would end my contract without fear of penalty. THG have lost their ability to 'sell' Olympic tickets for 2 consecutive games and maybe more so therefore they can't fulfill the basic duty of their contract.
Even more annoying than the arrogance of Pat Hickey or the gutless new executive of the OCI is that Shane Ross might waste even more tax money investigating the contract.
Just end the contract now!

While they are at it, the OCI can also change their constition so that Pat Jickey doesn't automatically return as an ex-official member.

Jesus, when Fianna Fáil lost their bottle at the last minute about the decision to excommunicate Bertie at least he had the decency to agree to resign....although he'll be back!
Rant over, sorry.

Doc07

[quote="Meanwhile the OCI Chair thinks that the thg Contract is binding.

Can someone please explain to the OCI that if you contract with someone to manage ticketing for a 16 year period, there's an implied duty on the part of the service provider not to behave in such a way as to lose their licence to trade and that if they do render performance of their end of the bargain impossible, OCI can not only walk away from the contract but they can also get damages for any additional expense incurred in getting a replacement. The only thing that could rule out that implied term is an express clause saying that thg can lose their accreditation and yet hold onto the contract. I'll eat my hat if it's in there but even if it was, a court would refuse to enforce it on public policy grounds.

Of course there is also the question of hickey 's authority to contract on behalf of the OCI without board approval but I imagine that that has been looked at.[/quote]

This is an excellent post. The 'contract' with THG should become null and void with immediate effect. The new head of the OCI should publish this statement and secure a new ticket agent (or tender for one etc) immediately.
If I signed a long term contract with a solicitor and the solicitor lost his license to practice law I would end my contract without fear of penalty. THG have lost their ability to 'sell' Olympic tickets for 2 consecutive games and maybe more so therefore they can't fulfill the basic duty of their contract.
Even more annoying than the arrogance of Pat Hickey or the gutless new executive of the OCI is that Shane Ross might waste even more tax money investigating the contract.
Just end the contract now!

While they are at it, the OCI can also change their constition so that Pat Jickey doesn't automatically return as an ex-official member.

Jesus, when Fianna Fáil lost their bottle at the last minute about the decision to excommunicate Bertie at least he had the decency to agree to resign....although he'll be back!
Rant over, sorry.

Joe_ Public

I'm no legal whizz, but I'm certain that if it was all as simple as some are suggesting, then the OCI board would already be implementing steps to rid themselves completely of the Hickey/THG virus that is still infecting it. From what I've read, they are not even in possession of the contracts that Hickey signed with THG, without the knowledge or consent of the board. But the understanding is that there is a clause inserted that guarantees the security of THG's future contracts, up to 2026, in the event they are not granted an IOC license for any particular Games. That seems to be the sticking point. Sarah Keane happens to be a solicitor by trade so I'd trust that she knows what she's doing here.

Greybottle

The IOC needs to move to have the reign of it's President limited to 4 years. No re-election.

The GAA manage well with 3 years and it serves them well. The President-Dictator-For-Life crap that's also prevalent in the FAI needs to stop. Fresh blood leads to less corruption.

The whole fcuking shambles needs a full overhaul, I expect Sarah Keane to bring new governance suggestions to the board in the near future to stop the rot, if she is in any way serious.

Wildlife Actor

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I'm no legal whizz, but I'm certain that if it was all as simple as some are suggesting, then the OCI board would already be implementing steps to rid themselves completely of the Hickey/THG virus that is still infecting it. From what I've read, they are not even in possession of the contracts that Hickey signed with THG, without the knowledge or consent of the board. But the understanding is that there is a clause inserted that guarantees the security of THG's future contracts, up to 2026, in the event they are not granted an IOC license for any particular Games. That seems to be the sticking point. Sarah Keane happens to be a solicitor by trade so I'd trust that she knows what she's doing here.

I get that you must know all the facts to be definitive about it, but look at what we do know. Thg has lost its accreditation not because of a typo on its application but because of it's conduct, so even if it was oci's job to get them the accreditation, thg disabled OCI from doing it. Thg could not perform its side of the deal in 2016 and now cannot do 2018. What possible and legally enforceable term of the contract could possibly resuscitate it from those blows without being itself unlawful. The ceo being a solicitor is not relevant because as an institution it will be getting outside advice anyway. What I reckon is that institutional fear is at play. A 10% (and therefore perfectly acceptable) risk of failure will often paralyse an organisation of this type. If the OCI was a private company with one or two shareholders, they'd be saying "right thg, you want to defend that deal in front of a judge after all that has happened and has yet to be uncovered? Best of luck to you."

Love nor Money

Love nor Money wrote: »

Can someone please explain to the OCI that if you contract with someone to manage ticketing for a 16 year period, there's an implied duty on the part of the service provider not to behave in such a way as to lose their licence to trade and that if they do render performance of their end of the bargain impossible, OCI can not only walk away from the contract but they can also get damages for any additional expense incurred in getting a replacement. The only thing that could rule out that implied term is an express clause saying that thg can lose their accreditation and yet hold onto the contract. I'll eat my hat if it's in there but even if it was, a court would refuse to enforce it on public policy grounds.

I'm not so sure. Implied clauses are not necessarily an easy thing to insert in a significant commercial contract. Courts don't like to rewrite what legal teams have pored over, and insert new terms on the basis that "well it wasn't there, and those who compiled the contract decided not to include it, but it obviously should be". They are more likely to do so where, say, protecting consumers, but in a contract where both parties are businesses...hmmmmm....

And public policy grounds are very fickle. It could equally be argued that it's good public policy to enforce contracts on the basis of what they contain.

But think it should not get to that stage anyway. I would have thought it should be a basic term in the contract. Every contract has a list of events that may lead to the termination of a contract. If an agent is appointed but the termination events did not include revocation of that agents ability to trade at specified events,, hard questions should be asked as to why it wasn't in there in the first place.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not so sure. Implied clauses are not necessarily an easy thing to insert in a significant commercial contract. Courts don't like to rewrite what legal teams have pored over, and insert new terms on the basis that "well it wasn't there, and those who compiled the contract decided not to include it, but it obviously should be". They are more likely to do so where, say, protecting consumers, but in a contract where both parties are businesses...hmmmmm....

And public policy grounds are very fickle. It could equally be argued that it's good public policy to enforce contracts on the basis of what they contain.

But think it should not get to that stage anyway. I would have thought it should be a basic term in the contract. Every contract has a list of events that may lead to the termination of a contract. If an agent is appointed but the termination events did not include revocation of that agents ability to trade at specified events,, hard questions should be asked as to why it wasn't in there in the first place.

If THG are unable to trade at olympic surely that amounts to frustration of contract?

Water John

The officer of President and Secretary General tend to be different, in most sporting orgs. President, a limited office time, Secretary General is usually a fulltime salaried post.

President of the OCI does not seem to mirror, either.

All legal and political mechanisms should be used to negate the contract.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

If THG are unable to trade at olympic surely that amounts to frustration of contract?

But that would require an examination of the terms of the contract. If it's a very simple "agent x is appointed until y", well it could be argued you take him warts and all and there is no frustration by his inability to perform certain roles before y. If the contract is more nuanced and says the sale of tickets for events a,b,c,d and e are fundamental terms and inability to sell for whatever reason for any of those events is a breach that can lead to rescission or termination, then that's a different story.

Water John

It's quite likely that the contract was written solely by THG and not scrutinised at all on the OCI side, considering the relationship that we know of with PH.

Deise Vu

If you hire a driver, give him a contract and he subsequently loses his licence, and thus cannot fulfil his side of the contract, he is out the door with no comeback. Am I missing something here?

josip

Deise Vu wrote: »

If you hire a driver, give him a contract and he subsequently loses his licence, and thus cannot fulfil his side of the contract, he is out the door with no comeback. Am I missing something here?

What if you let him include a clause in the original contract that said the contract would remain valid even if he lost his licence?

Deise Vu

Deise Vu wrote: »

If you hire a driver, give him a contract and he subsequently loses his licence, and thus cannot fulfil his side of the contract, he is out the door with no comeback. Am I missing something here?

If you hire a driver, give him a contract and he gets a parking ticket, he is certainly not out the door. If he misses a delivery he is not out the door. If he tries to deliver but owing to an act of God, a storm, traffic jams, he is not out the door. If he loses his licence for a few weeks, you can try to get him out the door. But expect to see him in the WRC saying...why didn't the contract expressly say he'd be out the door if that happened. And you'd be trying to imply that it was in the Contract. And the obvious question would be...but why on earth not put it in, if that was the intention.

Water John

Well if PH made no effort to uphold a balance in the contract, considering he represented the OCI, it could be interpreted as an overbearing arrangement, esp if things in Brazil don't go PH's way.

If I, as a Director negotiate and sign a contract for my company, that clearly works in my personal interest, as opposed to my company's interest, I'm negligent as a Director.

Water John

Water John wrote: »

Well if PH made no effort to uphold a balance in the contract, considering he represented the OCI, it could be interpreted as an overbearing arrangement, esp if things in Brazil don't go PH's way.

If I, as a Director negotiate and sign a contract for my company, that clearly works in my personal interest, as opposed to my company's interest, I'm negligent as a Director.

But that does not necessarily vitiate or void the Contract.

Deise Vu

Deleted User wrote: »

If you hire a driver, give him a contract and he gets a parking ticket, he is certainly not out the door. If he misses a delivery he is not out the door. If he tries to deliver but owing to an act of God, a storm, traffic jams, he is not out the door. If he loses his licence for a few weeks, you can try to get him out the door. But expect to see him in the WRC saying...why didn't the contract expressly say he'd be out the door if that happened. And you'd be trying to imply that it was in the Contract. And the obvious question would be...but why on earth not put it in, if that was the intention.

I think you are getting carried away with the majesty of the law there. If one party cannot carry out their side of the contract, there is no contract. We are not talking about someone losing their licence for a few weeks (how can you lose a licence for a few weeks?). THG have been refused accreditation for the Winter Olympics which means they cannot carry out their side of the contract. It would be Force Majeure in any kind of basic contract.

For fear you will come back and say the contract is on the back of a matchbox and there wasn't room for a Force Majeure clause then it comes down to the fundamentals of what a contract is. Party A will do X if Party B does Y. If Party B is unable, for any reason whatsoever, to do Y, then Party A doesn't have to do X.

Deise Vu

Deise Vu wrote: »

I think you are getting carried away with the majesty of the law there. If one party cannot carry out their side of the contract, there is no contract.

Contracts are all about law. Your second line is nonsense. There are whole libraries and tens of thousands of cases on the subject. There's a lot more to it than simply saying "there is no contract". The starting point is to examine the contract itself.

Deise Vu

Deleted User wrote: »

Contracts are all about law. Your second line is nonsense. There are whole libraries and tens of thousands of cases on the subject. There's a lot more to it than simply saying "there is no contract". The starting point is to examine the contract itself.

So if one party cannot do what it says it will do in the contract, the other party is still obligated to complete their side? Whatever you are having yourself. There is literally nothing further I can add.

Deise Vu

Deise Vu wrote: »

There is literally nothing further I can add.

You didn't need to say that was literally all you know about contract law.

Take it from someone after 20 years working contract law, contracts of employment, contracts for the sale of property, contracts of all shapes and sizes...you are as wrong as wrong could be. It all depends on what's in the contract, and of course what might be in legislation which can protect house purchasers, consumers, employees...but very little for commercial parties who omit to specify the grounds on which a contract can be terminated in very clear terms.