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

givyjoe

Cyrus wrote: »

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?

What point are you trying to make re: copy and paste?! What exactly is the problem with referencing the CRO website?!

Did the auditors file a H4 report.. yes they did. Is this form filed because of a failure to keep proper accounts, yes it is. Fairly simple stuff for someone with your knowledge auditing knowledge I'd have thought?

The point, which I've already made, is that they haven't kept proper books of accounting, for which JD is ultimately responsible. If they're making a mistake now and the FAI DID keep proper books, then JD has nothing to answer for in that regard.

Anyway, this is all taking away from the focus of where it should be. JD. The board have all agreed to step down and are apologetic for this mess, but not JD. Is it a wonder why there's a 'witch hunt' for the man.

Chancer3001

secman wrote: »

Chancer3001 wrote: »

So what?

He didnt chair the independent auditors!

So you cop on fffffsss

Clueless

No. YOU'RE clueless.

(Im going to give it a go at debating at the standard level of this thread today)

Chancer3001

givyjoe wrote: »

Cyrus wrote: »

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?

What point are you trying to make re: copy and paste?! What exactly is the problem with referencing the CRO website?!

Did the auditors file a H4 report.. yes they did. Is this form filed because of a failure to keep proper accounts, yes it is. Fairly simple stuff for someone with your knowledge auditing knowledge I'd have thought?

The point, which I've already made, is that they haven't kept proper books of accounting, for which JD is ultimately responsible. If they're making a mistake now and the FAI DID keep proper books, then JD has nothing to answer for in that regard.

Anyway, this is all taking away from the focus of where it should be. JD. The board have all agreed to step down and are apologetic for this mess, but not JD. Is it a wonder why there's a 'witch hunt' for the man.

I thought i read JD offered to step aside? Maybe thats changed

Cyrus

givyjoe wrote: »

Did the auditors file a H4 report.. yes they did. Is this form filed because of a failure to keep proper accounts, yes it is. Fairly simple stuff for someone with your knowledge auditing knowledge I'd have thought?
.

its an allegation, how many times do i need to repeat it.

your attempt at condescension is noted and ignored.

givyjoe

Chancer3001 wrote: »

I thought i read JD offered to step aside? Maybe thats changed

..until Mazars complete their report. He hasn't given any indication that he's stepping down from the FAI permanently. Why hasn't he simply resigned with no conditions attached?

Chancer3001

I guess he doesnt feel he needs to

Or hes hoping mazers report will paint things in a better light for him

givyjoe

Cyrus wrote: »

its an allegation, how many times do i need to repeat it.

For christ sake, you claimed earlier to have a knowledge of auditing. What do you think they're basing the H4 report on, hearsay? They are basing it on black and white books of accounting, they are either kept properly or they aren't. Bizarre stuff from you, honestly.

As for condescension, you've a short memory.

Cyrus

givyjoe wrote: »

For christ sake, you claimed earlier to have a knowledge of auditing. What do you think they're basing the H4 report on, hearsay? They are basing it on black and white books of accounting, they are either kept properly or they aren't. Bizarre stuff from you, honestly.

to be correct they are basing it on missing books of account, black, white and every colour in between. Or they allege they are.

there has been no finding, adverse or otherwise regarding the books of account.

if i walk into a police station in the morning and file a report of assault against you, have you assaulted me?

givyjoe

Chancer3001 wrote: »

I guess he doesnt feel he needs to

Or hes hoping mazers report will paint things in a better light for him

Riiiight, but the entire board did.. you seriously think, in light of what we already know, that the ONLY one who's going to be absolved of this and allowed to continue in his role is JD?!

givyjoe

Cyrus wrote: »

to be correct they are basing it on missing books of account, black, white and every colour in between. Or they allege they are.

there has been no finding, adverse or otherwise regarding the books of account.

if i walk into a police station in the morning and file a report of assault against you, have you assaulted me?

Imagine I had CCTV footage of the entire incident, you could claim its an allegation all you like, but it's there in black and white (or colour for the fancy CCTV). Even better, lets say I shot you point blank in the head, at random and all caught on CCTV. Yeah, lets say it's still just an allegation.

Honestly, at this point you may as well be sticking your fingers in ears screaming "you can't triple stamp a double stamp, you can't triple stamp a double stamp"

To recap...

1. Delaney tries to stop a story breaking by applying for an injunction, and fails
2. The story reveals a loan, Delaney steps aside as CEO
3. Sport Ireland repeatedly ask the reason for the loan, Delaney and the FAI do not provide an explanation
4. The FAI President distances himself from FAI statements and apologises to Sport Ireland
5. Sport Ireland suspend all funding
6. Delaney and Co. avoid questions put at an Oireachtas Committee
7. More revelations reveal lavish spending on expenses, including cash withdrawals
8. The FAI accepts it has governance and financial issues that require "many urgent steps" and the board is stepping down
9. Deloiite inform the CRO that the FAI failed to keep proper accounts
10. Dots disappears. Chancer changes from abuse and telling other posters they are stupid to blaming the Auditors...

This saga just keeps giving and giving and giving.

givyjoe

Deleted User wrote: »

To recap...

1. Delaney tries to stop a story breaking by applying for an injunction, and fails
2. The story reveals a loan, Delaney steps aside as CEO
3. Sport Ireland repeatedly ask the reason for the loan, Delaney and the FAI do not provide an explanation
4. The FAI President distances himself from FAI statements and apologises to Sport Ireland
5. Sport Ireland suspend all funding
6. Delaney and Co. avoid questions put at an Oireachtas Committee
7. More revelations reveal lavish spending on expenses, including cash withdrawals
8. The FAI accepts it has governance and financial issues that require "many urgent steps" and the board is stepping down
9. Deloiite inform the CRO that the FAI failed to keep proper accounts
10. Dots disappears. Chancer changes from abuse and telling other posters they are stupid to blaming the Auditors...

This saga just keeps giving and giving and giving.

Lets not forget the Jonathan Hall report, backdated to make it seem like the move from CEO to Senior Executive Vice President was all part of the plan. :pac:

Cyrus

givyjoe wrote: »

Imagine I had CCTV footage of the entire incident, you could claim its an allegation all you like, but it's there in black and white (or colour for the fancy CCTV). Even better, lets say I shot you point blank in the head, at random and all caught on CCTV. Yeah, lets say it's still just an allegation.

Honestly, at this point you may as well be sticking your fingers in ears screaming "you can't triple stamp a double stamp, you can't triple stamp a double stamp"

thats pretty rich coming from you,

its an allegation, they have signed off on clean audits, its very suspicious, id like to see some proof.

amcalester

Cyrus wrote: »

if i walk into a police station in the morning and file a report of assault against you, have you assaulted me?

No, but if the Gardaí don't catch the criminal then that doesn't mean there was no assault or that the assaulter did nothing wrong.

The auditor's poor performance is irrelevant to JD's position, successful audits or not, it's clear he did not have the correct processes in place.

Pedro K

[Deleted User] wrote: »

To recap...

1. Delaney tries to stop a story breaking by applying for an injunction, and fails
2. The story reveals a loan, Delaney steps aside as CEO
3. Sport Ireland repeatedly ask the reason for the loan, Delaney and the FAI do not provide an explanation
4. The FAI President distances himself from FAI statements and apologises to Sport Ireland
5. Sport Ireland suspend all funding
6. Delaney and Co. avoid questions put at an Oireachtas Committee
7. More revelations reveal lavish spending on expenses, including cash withdrawals
8. The FAI accepts it has governance and financial issues that require "many urgent steps" and the board is stepping down
9. Deloiite inform the CRO that the FAI failed to keep proper accounts
10. Dots disappears. Chancer changes from abuse and telling other posters they are stupid to blaming the Auditors...

This saga just keeps giving and giving and giving.

And some within this thread continue to wave their arms and say, "nothing to see here."

givyjoe

Cyrus wrote: »

thats pretty rich coming from you,

its an allegation, they have signed off on clean audits, its very suspicious, id like to see some proof.

I'm not the one swimming against the tide of evidence, or desperately trying to deflect the blame away from JD.

I'm sure Deloitte are sending you a copy of the H4 report as we speak :rolleyes:.

What is suspicious about it specifically? What exactly are you insinuating? Is it more or less suspicious than the CEO 'needing' to give his organisation a 100k loan, and only informing some of the board? Genuinely trying to gauge exactly what it is you consider to be dodgy.

Deise Vu

Cyrus wrote: »

to be correct they are basing it on missing books of account, black, white and every colour in between. Or they allege they are.

there has been no finding, adverse or otherwise regarding the books of account.

if i walk into a police station in the morning and file a report of assault against you, have you assaulted me?

I don't know why I am joining this argument because I have serious doubts about the sincerity of some posters but some of the ignorance being displayed here needs to be corrected.

If you are assaulted you are innocent until proven guilty. In the case of a filing by auditors that proper books of account have not been kept they are invalidating their previous 'clean' audit report. The FAI now do not have a clean set of accounts which will inevitably attract the attention of Revenue and should also be of massive concern to their bankers and to people like SI.

Giving a clean audit report and then following up with a H4 filing regarding contravention of S281 and S282 are not mutually incompatible as you seem to be implying. The Auditors will audit the books and records they are supplied with, get confirmation from the Directors that they have all the books and records and that they have been properly maintained, and they will then give an opinion.

If it subsequently transpires that a company clearly did not maintain proper records, the auditors will lodge a H4 to ensure that all stakeholders are aware that their clean opinion is now invalid. Possible examples of this would be Directors (not saying it happened in this case, obviously) maintaining separate cash slush funds which weren't put through the records. It could also be that items in the accounts are deliberately mis-classified. E.G (and again, not saying it happened in this case , God Forbid) a loan from a director could be shown as a suspense item received in error and the repayment as the contra entry.

The bottom line is that the Auditors, having learnt of new information, are saying the FAI's accounts are not clean.That is entirely, 100%, on the Directors.

Cyrus

givyjoe wrote: »

I'm not the one swimming against the tide of evidence, or desperately trying to deflect the blame away from JD.

I'm sure Deloitte are sending you a copy of the H4 report as we speak :rolleyes:.

What is suspicious about it specifically? What exactly are you insinuating? Is it more or less suspicious than the CEO 'needing' to give his organisation a 100k loan, and only informing some of the board? Genuinely trying to gauge exactly what it is you consider to be dodgy.

you dont see what is suspicious about the issuance of years of clean audit opinions and then a filing allegating incomplete books and records being kept?

why are you conflating completely different issues?

what evidence am i swimming against? what have you seen exactly? apart from the froth from your mouth :pac:

Cyrus

Deise Vu wrote: »

Giving a clean audit report and then following up with a H4 filing regarding contravention of S281 and S282 are not mutually incompatible as you seem to be implying.

i disagree, it doesn't say much for their audit procedures. are you suggesting that a proper audit firms work is solely based on information provided to them by the company? and they dont seek to corroborate this with 3rd parties or use alternative testing ?

givyjoe

Cyrus wrote: »

you dont see what is suspicious about the issuance of years of clean audit opinions and then a filing allegating incomplete books and records being kept?

why are you conflating completely different issues?

what evidence am i swimming against? what have you seen exactly? apart from the froth from your mouth :pac:

I think Deise Vu above succinctly and neatly puts your 'expert' opinion back in its box.

By all means, please clearly state what is suspicious about the auditors current position.

Chancer3001

My point was never "nothing to see here"

My point was just because there's issues that need improving on, doesnt meam delaney et al have to be sacked

ESPECIALLY when nothing has been proven.

Cyrus

givyjoe wrote: »

I think Deise Vu above succinctly and neatly puts your 'expert' opinion back in its box.

By all means, please clearly state what is suspicious about the auditors current position.

colour me surprised at your reaction,

supports post that backs you up

i have already stated it. its an backside covering exercise and is cynical in the extreme.

Chancer3001

I know that question wasnt aimed at me, but i think its a bit rich that the auditing firm signed off on accounts for over a decade, said everything was correct and above board,.... and now when maybe its not been auditef properly...its delaneys fault

kippy

Chancer3001 wrote: »

My point was never "nothing to see here"

My point was just because there's issues that need improving on, doesnt meam delaney et al have to be sacked

ESPECIALLY when nothing has been proven.

Yourself and others (earlier in this thread) were all "nothing to see here".
Lets not revise history.


What do you want proven about the use of credit cards when people were taking paycuts/couldnt afford tracksuits elsewhere in the organisation?
What do you want proven about the attempts to hide a 100K loan from directors and the general public?
What do you want proven about the lack of answers to state oversight committees?
What do you want proven about the attempts to hide the fact that his rent has been paid for years?

Anyone with a decent moral compass (probably wouldn't end up doing what has been done tbf) but would at least realise THEY are the problem, not the solution and do the right thing.

This guy has made a fortune off the back of Irish soccer yet refused point blankly to answer any questions asked of him YEARLY - not just in front of Oireachtas committees.

givyjoe

Cyrus wrote: »

colour me surprised at your reaction,

supports post that backs you up

i have already stated it. its an backside covering exercise and is cynical in the extreme.

Backs me up?! You mean backs the auditors up.

So not really suspicious at all then, i.e there is something to cover up, being either a mistake and/or their incompetence.

Why would they do it, if there wasn't a real problem with the FAI's books?

Cyrus

givyjoe wrote: »

Backs me up?! You mean backs the auditors up.

So not really suspicious at all then, i.e there is something to cover up, being either a mistake and/or their incompetence.

Why would they do it, if there wasn't a real problem with the FAI's books?

backs the auditors up? what now?

covering up their own incompetence is suspicious.

they would do it to cover up their own failings

kippy

Chancer3001 wrote: »

I know that question wasnt aimed at me, but i think its a bit rich that the auditing firm signed off on accounts for over a decade, said everything was correct and above board,.... and now when maybe its not been auditef properly...its delaneys fault

The auditors look to have done a poor job, but again, their outputs are based on:
The inputs they are given and I would suspect, the money they are being paid/time they have billed for the auditing.

Delaney didn't even tell the board about the 100K - its likely it was nowhere in the accounts either. Who knows what else was hidden in the accounts? (The answer to this should be relatively obvious)

Amirani

Cyrus wrote: »

you dont see what is suspicious about the issuance of years of clean audit opinions and then a filing allegating incomplete books and records being kept?

why are you conflating completely different issues?

what evidence am i swimming against? what have you seen exactly? apart from the froth from your mouth :pac:

Cyrus, it's become pretty apparent that you're out of your depth on this subject matter. Beasty and Deise Vu have given pretty succinct explanations that I can endorse having worked in audit.

Anyway, regardless of the performance of the auditors in this situation, the FAI's board is being investigated for breaching company law by not maintaining proper accounting records. The breadth and scope of these breaches is unclear, as is whether or not the audit should have identified them. Until we find out what the actual breaches are, then we can't really decide that. What is clear, and is more pertinent to the Soccer forum, is that the FAI board and leadership has shown itself to be completely unfit for purpose.

Chancer3001

Chancer3001 wrote: »

ESPECIALLY when nothing has been proven.

Someone is missing the bit where the FAI accepted that they had serious governance and financial issues.

To use sporting parlance Chancer, game over, ball burst...

Cyrus

Amirani wrote: »

Cyrus, it's become pretty apparent that you're out of your depth on this subject matter. Beasty and Deise Vu have given pretty succinct explanations that I can endorse having worked in audit.

Anyway, regardless of the performance of the auditors in this situation, the FAI's board is being investigated for breaching company law by not maintaining proper accounting records. The breadth and scope of these breaches is unclear, as is whether or not the audit should have identified them. Until we find out what the actual breaches are, then we can't really decide that. What is clear, and is more pertinent to the Soccer forum, is that the FAI board and leadership has shown itself to be completely unfit for purpose.

you have supported my position with your second paragraph which makes your opening statement strange.

you arent the only one who has worked in audit so forgive me if i dont take your endorsement as infallible.

Deise Vu

Cyrus wrote: »

i disagree, it doesn't say much for their audit procedures. are you suggesting that a proper audit firms work is solely based on information provided to them by the company? and they dont seek to corroborate this with 3rd parties or use alternative testing ?

No I'm not saying that. Auditors will routinely get external confirmation such as from banks. If, in the course of their audit, they come across an indication that something is amiss (eg an account transfer in a bank that doesn't cross check with the declared bank accounts), then they will expand their audit to get an explanation and, if it is not satisfactory, they will qualify the accounts.

They absolutely will not go on a solo run trawling expedition and they are not expected to.

Quandary

Sure just leave Delaney in charge. He's a sound auld skin, bit of a character. It doesn't matter if he is clearly incapable of running a multi million èuro corporate entity. It doesn't matter if he takes a few liberties with a few expenses. It doesn't matter if he has been fastidiously feathering his nest for the last 15 odd years.

He's like the Bertie Ahearn of the FAI. It doesn't matter how obviously slippery,devious and self serving he is, you will always have some pig headed few defending him even after the world's biggest spotlight has been shone on his transgressions.

Cyrus

Deise Vu wrote: »

No I'm not saying that. Auditors will routinely get external confirmation such as from banks. If, in the course of their audit, they come across an indication that something is amiss (eg an account transfer in a bank that doesn't cross check with the declared bank accounts), then they will expand their audit to get an explanation and, if it is not satisfactory, they will qualify the accounts.

They absolutely will not go on a solo run trawling expedition and they are not expected to.

watchdogs not bloodhounds....

i never said that they would, but the assertion here by many is that the books and records presented by a company are taken as gospel and they dont look outside that, which is utter nonsense.

and if a particular transaction looks suspicious they will go as far as they need to satisfy themselves regarding it, or if not qualify their opinion.

do you find it plausible that they now suddenly have concerns over proper books and records having audited the entity for a number of years? do you not finding the timing a little coincidental?

amcalester

Chancer3001 wrote: »

I know that question wasnt aimed at me, but i think its a bit rich that the auditing firm signed off on accounts for over a decade, said everything was correct and above board,.... and now when maybe its not been auditef properly...its delaneys fault

JD is not necessarily at fault for the Audit not being done properly, but he's certainly at fault and responsible for any issues that the audit should have discovered.

Whether they were or not is irrelevant.

awec

Chancer3001 wrote: »

I know that question wasnt aimed at me, but i think its a bit rich that the auditing firm signed off on accounts for over a decade, said everything was correct and above board,.... and now when maybe its not been auditef properly...its delaneys fault

Good grief.

Do you just not understand the posts on this thread from people much more knowledgable than yourself or are you being deliberately obtuse?

Dubh Geannain

Chancer3001 wrote: »

I know that question wasnt aimed at me, but i think its a bit rich that the auditing firm signed off on accounts for over a decade, said everything was correct and above board,.... and now when maybe its not been auditef properly...its delaneys fault

Just like the neutered Financial Regulator and auditors that let the banks run amok during the Septic Tiger.

The auditors aren't coming out in a good light here but blaming them for the mess is akin to blaming the barman for letting a drunk drink himself into a stupor. The drunk could have been concealing some drinks in his bag or sneaking next door for a top up.

The blame lies firmly with the the glass of JD and Folk.

Deise Vu

Cyrus wrote: »

watchdogs not bloodhounds....

i never said that they would, but the assertion here by many is that the books and records presented by a company are taken as gospel and they dont look outside that, which is utter nonsense.

and if a particular transaction looks suspicious they will go as far as they need to satisfy themselves regarding it, or if not qualify their opinion.

do you find it plausible that they now suddenly have concerns over proper books and records having audited the entity for a number of years? do you not finding the timing a little coincidental?

Please tell me you are not serious? Of course the timing is not coincidental.

There are two investigations going on into FAI governance. During the course of those investigations the auditors will be asked about specific items (eg why JD's loan advance and repayment was not declared in the 2017 accounts). I have no idea what specifically triggered the H4 but it is reasonable to assume that the Auditors have now been supplied with information with which they were not previously aware.

Cyrus

Deise Vu wrote: »

I have no idea what specifically triggered the H4 but it is reasonable to assume that the Auditors have now been supplied with information with which they were not previously aware.

nor do i, but i would rather wait and see than jump to conclusions.

from any information i have seen the 100k was both lodged and then paid out of an operating bank account so the transaction wasnt hidden, rather the nature of it, it would appear.

i would hope there is more to it than that though, as that in and of it self is hardly grounds for a H4 filing.

givyjoe

Cyrus wrote: »

nor do i, but i would rather wait and see than jump to conclusions.

from any information i have seen the 100k was both lodged and then paid out of an operating bank account so the transaction wasnt hidden, rather the nature of it, it would appear.

i would hope there is more to it than that though, as that in and of it self is hardly grounds for a H4 filing.

Remember you banging on about this article just being a copy and pasted from the CRO? Well if you had read it, you might have noted this part '... ‘adequate account records’ are those that correctly record and explain the transactions of a company.
Not keeping adequate records is a reason for a H4 report be file and not explaining the transactions = not keeping adequate records. I'm just referencing what you stated was copied and pasted from the CRO website.

Cyrus

givyjoe wrote: »

Remember you banging on about this article just being a copy and pasted from the CRO? Well if you had read it, you might have noted this part '... ‘adequate account records’ are those that correctly record and explain the transactions of a company.
Not keeping adequate records is a reason for a H4 report be file and not explaining the transactions = not keeping adequate records. I'm just referencing what you stated was copied and pasted from the CRO website.

yes and as i said in my opinion, non disclosure of a relatively immaterial transaction involving a director in and of itself is unlikely to trigger a H4 filing, and i am keen to see what else they allege

do you comprehend?

Deise Vu

Cyrus wrote: »

nor do i, but i would rather wait and see than jump to conclusions.

from any information i have seen the 100k was both lodged and then paid out of an operating bank account so the transaction wasnt hidden, rather the nature of it, it would appear.

i would hope there is more to it than that though, as that in and of it self is hardly grounds for a H4 filing.

Just to be clear. The only thing we don't know is the specifics of the gap in the books and records. The auditors, who previously, said the accounts were in agreement with the books and records and in compliance with the Companies Act have withdrawn that opinion in the light of new information.

That means De Facto, 100%, as a matter of certainty, the Auditors say the records are incomplete or false. There's no need for a jury or any investigation. The next step is the ODCE will follow up and decide what sanctions will apply.

Cyrus

Deise Vu wrote: »

Just to be clear. The only thing we don't know is the specifics of the gap in the books and records. The auditors, who previously, said the accounts were in agreement with the books and records and in compliance with the Companies Act have withdrawn that opinion in the light of new information.

That means De Facto, 100%, as a matter of certainty, the Auditors say the records are incomplete or false. There's no need for a jury or any investigation. The next step is the ODCE will follow up and decide what sanctions will apply.

to my knowledge the fai has not been found to be guilty of contravening those sections of company law. So someone will decide if they are guilty or not. Surely that does require an investigation into the facts as presented. How else do the ODCE decide what sanctions, if any, apply?

Chancer3001

How could the auditors have missed 100k cheque coming in and 100k being paid back out?

Especially since that 100k went into the "main" bank account to stop it going over the overdraft limit. So its not like it was "hidden" away.

Whatever board remains of the FAI , job number 1 is to find new auditors.

In response to whoever asked about delaney spending while some teams struggled... its all a matter of priorities.

That time period with hugh expenses (i believe i read this somewhere) was during a key time where the fai was trying to win the rights to host some big games.

Hosting big games was just way higher in the priority list (rightly or wrongly) than say the womens soccer team. You can argue the pros and cons of both sides.

D14Rugby

Jesus some posters have managed to do a full 180 on their opinion of the auditors in less than 12 hours. That's impressive

Deise Vu

Cyrus wrote: »

to my knowledge the fai has not been found to be guilty of contravening those sections of company law. So someone will decide if they are guilty or not. Surely that does require an investigation into the facts as presented. How else do the ODCE decide what sanctions, if any, apply?

The auditors, who are the experts, have said S281 and S282 have been contravened. The only matter to be investigated by the ODCE is how egregious the breaches were and to apply appropriate sanctions.

Cyrus

Deise Vu wrote: »

The auditors, who are the experts, have said S281 and S282 have been contravened. The only matter to be investigated by the ODCE is how egregious the breaches were and to apply appropriate sanctions.

You lost me at experts

But seriously you are effectively making the same point, the odce will investigate the breaches alleged and decide what action to take , if any .

Deise Vu

Cyrus wrote: »

You lost me at experts

But seriously you are effectively making the same point, the odce will investigate the breaches alleged and decide what action to take , if any .

There, fixed that for you. Now we are in agreement.

kippy

Chancer3001 wrote: »

How could the auditors have missed 100k cheque coming in and 100k being paid back out?

Especially since that 100k went into the "main" bank account to stop it going over the overdraft limit. So its not like it was "hidden" away.

Whatever board remains of the FAI , job number 1 is to find new auditors.

In response to whoever asked about delaney spending while some teams struggled... its all a matter of priorities.

That time period with hugh expenses (i believe i read this somewhere) was during a key time where the fai was trying to win the rights to host some big games.

Hosting big games was just way higher in the priority list (rightly or wrongly) than say the womens soccer team. You can argue the pros and cons of both sides.

Who is responsible for the 100K cheque in and out - the auditors?

We only have access to details for 6 months of expenses so far......
It's hard to explain away cash withdrawals off a credit card......

Chancer3001

No jd is responsinle for the cheque. Clearly.

But the auditors shouldnt have missed it coming in and going out.

The 6 months "so far"... if i was guessing id say we were deliberately leaked the most expensive 6 months...

Chardee MacDennis

Jesus Christ lads, this thread is a s***show....