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

Zico !

still there so

secman

givyjoe wrote: »

I know he isn't, didn't he claim he was previously though. He does have an accountancy degree though no? Let me guess, you're absolving him of any blame in regard to failure to keep proper books?

Apparently passed the ICA FAE but didnt have the necessary 3 years training experience to apply for membership, allegedly.

Cyrus

givyjoe wrote: »

I know he isn't, didn't he claim he was previously though. He does have an accountancy degree though no? Let me guess, you're absolving him of any blame in regard to failure to keep proper books?

I have no idea what degree he has if any and what has that got to do with anything ?

As to your guess , guess again

Cyrus

secman wrote: »

The FAI financial year end is 31st December, the 2017 accounts were presented at AGM in Aug 2018, they are most likely working on the 31 Dec 2018 accounts and lodged the form with CRO, very few of these are ever issued and would not be done lightly as CRO have to notify Office of Corporate Enforcement who will now have to investigate it, presume Auditors will have to have sufficient evidence to back their decision to report.

I find it hard to believe that there is a massive deterioration in the books and records in one year that would have resulted in a clean audit opinion in 2017 and previous and now they have made an almost unprecedented allegation.

Covering their own backsides more like

secman

Cyrus wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that there is a massive deterioration in the books and records in one year that would have resulted in a clean audit opinion in 2017 and previous and now they have made an almost unprecedented allegation.

Covering their own backsides more like

Tend to agree with you, no spotlight last year but this year with all the revelations by the whistle blower, asses needed to be covered.

givyjoe

Cyrus wrote: »

I have no idea what degree he has if any and what has that got to do with anything ?

As to your guess , guess again

You've no idea? Yep, that says it all really.

You can't see the relevance of the CEO having an accounting degree, in a scenario where his organisation are not keeping proper books.. really?? Let me spell it out, he can't plead ignorance.

Ultimate Seduction

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Why it effect the team in any way?

It could. We see it in club football all the time. The negative vibes around the whole set up could effect the players. Hopefully not.

Nesta99

Cyrus wrote: »

I have no idea what degree he has if any and what has that got to do with anything ?

As to your guess , guess again

He said did say himself often that he was a chartered accountant eg referring to Eircom Park when he was on the board of Waterford United along the lines of 'as a chartered accountant', he believed it wasnt feasable, as an aside I'm not sure he was right though and a 40k football stadium fully owned by the FAI for less than the Aviva debt could have been feasable (plans similar to St Mary's in Southampton for £30m (?). The issues at the time iirc were that government were pushing Berties Bowl, it was planned to have a silly amount of events eg concerts when in competition for the like with Croke Park and whatever would have been done with Lansdowne.But thats a different debate altogether with and with hindsight maybe.

When questioned CAI stated "We have members named John Delaney, but neither is the FAI chief executive. To be called a chartered accountant, you must be a member of our institute.”

Delaney's reply was “I passed my final admittance examination for chartered accountancy after completing the previous three professional examinations and I have served my full apprenticeship. I have not applied for membership as I have not required it for my career path.If I feel I require to be a member in the future, I will go through the formality of doing so.” It was also on his FAI online profile.
https://economia.icaew.com/news/september-2016/fai-chief-john-delaney-admits-he-is-a-not-a-chartered-accountant


Not sure if this was him saying this or a tongue in cheek piece by the indo when he was all the business as the FAI saviour!?

Age: 37 Job: Chief executive of the FAI Family: Married with three-year-old twins Education: CBS, Waterford DIT, where he studied chartered accountancy

Career: A background in business, setting up Cameo Cakes in Tralee before moving into the distribution business. He sold his QC Logistics firm to Belgian group QBX in 2002. Delaney became treasurer of the FAI before landing the top job almost one year ago.

Reading: The Genesis report

Car: Traded in his Merc for an Alfa Romeo, to support FAI sponsor Fiat

TV: Watches Scooby-Doo on TG4 on Saturday morning with his kids

Hobbies: Used to play golf

but no time for anything but football.

Football teams: Supports Ireland, Waterford and Manchester United.
https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/john-delaney-the-cv-26213600.html

Cyrus

givyjoe wrote: »

You've no idea? Yep, that says it all really.

You can't see the relevance of the CEO having an accounting degree, in a scenario where his organisation are not keeping proper books.. really?? Let me spell it out, he can't plead ignorance.

Ok what accounting degree did he do ? I have no idea but you must know ?

And where has he pled ignorance ?

If you can’t see deloittes actions for what they are it says if all really

howiya

Cyrus wrote: »

If you can’t see deloittes actions for what they are it says if all really

Do you expect Deloitte to keep going along with it and say nothing?

They've been caught out. Hopefully it affects their reputation but with all the revelations they were going to have to do something.

Burkie1203

howiya wrote: »

Do you expect Deloitte to keep going along with it and say nothing?

They've been caught out. Hopefully it affects their reputation but with all the revelations they were going to have to do something.

Maybe not.

Deloitte will have a legal team to fight the FAI unlike others and won't want to get dragged into this If they haven't done anything wrong.

Don't be surprised if they issue a letter to CRO resigning as auditors as the next step

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

Nesta99 wrote: »

TV: Watches Scooby-Doo on TG4 on Saturday morning with his kids

And he would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for that pesky journalist.

Cyrus

howiya wrote: »

Do you expect Deloitte to keep going along with it and say nothing?

They've been caught out. Hopefully it affects their reputation but with all the revelations they were going to have to do something.

Well they went along with it for long enough

Their cynicism has surprised me and that’s saying something

I hope they get at least as much negative press as Delaney out of all of this

givyjoe

Cyrus wrote: »

Ok what accounting degree did he do ? I have no idea but you must know ?

And where has he pled ignorance ?

If you can’t see deloittes actions for what they are it says if all really

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.

Cyrus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

blanch152 wrote: »

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

if the charge of improper books is proven i agree.

Chancer3001

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

Beasty

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

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

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

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

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

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

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

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.

secman

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.

Will you cop on ffs, Delaney chaired the Finance Committee !

Chancer3001

So what?

He didnt chair the independent auditors!

So you cop on fffffsss

givyjoe

Cyrus wrote: »

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.

That is absolute bullsh!t re: all the article does. Did you miss the bit the part that covered the specific reasons a H4 form is filed? You know, the part that references that the report was filed because the FAI did not keep adequate accounting records, which if correctly kept, should "...explain the transactions of a company; .... be kept on a continuous and consistent basis; and include all sums of money received and expended by the company...". I wonder which part of the above requirements could be relevant to the FAI's current troubles, hmmm, let me think.

The article also happens to spell out the consequences of breaches of the Companies Act because, well er.. they are the consequences. What should the writer reference as regards the consequences

I'm a bit bemused as to why you dont understand my last question.The auditors initially passed the books as fine, they're now saying they aren't. So they either made a mistake then, or they're making a mistake now. Which do you believe is more likely?

As someone else has noted, we've had a few pages about auditors, instead of JD himself. My initial point was that you were trying to deflect blame away form JD, job done this morning.

secman

Chancer3001 wrote: »

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

Just to be absolutely clear, its The directors and board duty to keep proper books of accounts and safeguard the assets of the company, the Auditors have to Express an opinion if Accounts give a true and fair view of assets , liabilities and financial position of the company.
The Directors report will also refer to sections 281to 285 of the companies Act 2014 and set out how steps have been taken to keep proper books of account.

Cyrus

givyjoe wrote: »

That is absolute bullsh!t re: all the article does. Did you miss the bit the part that covered the specific reasons a H4 form is filed? You know, the part that references that the report was filed because the FAI did not keep adequate accounting records, which if correctly kept, should "...explain the transactions of a company; .... be kept on a continuous and consistent basis; and include all sums of money received and expended by the company...". I wonder which part of the above requirements could be relevant to the FAI's current troubles, hmmm, let me think.

i repeat, the article is a copy and paste from relevant sections from the CRO website no more no less.

as to which mistake of the auditors is more likely?? what point are you trying to make? is it better if their initial mistake was in issuing a clean audit report for your purposes?

secman

Chancer3001 wrote: »

So what?

He didnt chair the independent auditors!

So you cop on fffffsss

Clueless