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

kippy

Chancer3001 wrote: »

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...

They shouldn't have missed it - I agree.
In the same way as the CEO shouldn't have done it, misled the board, refused to answer questions on it,

I'd like to see the details for the past 10 years on his CC to be honest.

givyjoe

Cyrus wrote: »

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?

Condescension noted and ignored :pac::pac::pac:

Oh, a relatively immaterial transaction is it? Strange JD would get try get an injunction preventing the publication of an article around it. Even stranger that JD would then refuse to answer any questions on the transaction and hide behind 'legal advice'.

Why are you so keen to see what else they allege, so we get even more reasons why JD needs to be removed asap?

sydthebeat

Cyrus wrote: »

...... non disclosure of a relatively immaterial transaction involving a director....... ?

That delaney seeked a court injunction against its disclosure....

Immaterial my ass!!!

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

Chardee MacDennis wrote: »

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

because the mods are ignoring it as it is generating clicks and content. The usual story.

Trolls encouraged, those responding carded and banned.

givyjoe

Faith Some Loop wrote: »

because the mods are ignoring it as it is generating clicks and content. The usual story.

Trolls encouraged, those responding carded and banned.

To be fair, I don't think anyone has so far, at least not in the last week.

irishgeo

The cheque was hidden. Was wasn't it lodged to the main bank account straight away. Not transferred from another account first. Secondly no knowns how the money was accounted for when it was paid back.

Awesomeness

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.

Yeah we never would have got those games if John hadn't got his sunday lunch in the local pub while wearing his new hilfiger jacket

secman

It was lodged and repaid, but it was not reported in the financial statements as a " related party transaction " which it definitely was. One of the "hidden" aspects was it was only disclosed to 3 board members. We also dont know how it was described in the receipts book of account nor how it was described in the payments ledger, this may have been a difficulty for the Auditors, if it wasnt specifically identified as being from John Delaney and being repaid to John Delaney.
Mazzars are currently investigating this aspect ,and also as to what gave rise to the necessity of the transaction, were "client " bank accounts such as UEFA prize monies for clubs properly ring fenced and not used for operating purposes.

Oat23

Chardee MacDennis wrote: »

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

I've actually changed my opinion on chancer/dots. They are performing a service with their trolling because they keep this thread in the top 5 on the front page of the forum most of the day. More eyes on it the better.

Irishmale0399

Lads we have to keep 2-3 things in mind here....

1. The auditors could only audit what the FAI gave them access to.....did they see everything or were they given paper statements etc. which were not 100% but added up. Now that they have seen reports in the paper they realise they have been had and reported it to the right body.

2. Yesterday everyone was asking for a independant foresnic audit....all saying OK. Reading between the lines they either know more is coming or they suspect that more is in the pipeline. O´Dowd questioned Mazars being the right people and other TDs pushed for a public investigation. They were also aware that the high court could be used against the state....have the FAI told them JD is threatening it???

3. R. Troy spoke about backhanders to get business witht he FAI....was he trying to tell the public something??? He also mentioned (or 1 of the others) that Mark T would surely have more info to make public....

JD on gardening leave and his 2 closest board members resigning is a statement in itself....JD is fighting for a payoff...the remaining board dont want to give it to him and have to find ammo to make sure they are not forced to do so. They obviously need time to do now that they should have been doing for years....look very closely at the organisation instead of accepting Kim Dong Ds word.

Irishmale0399

https://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/international-soccer/sport-ireland-chief-john-treacy-john-delaney-is-not-a-part-of-the-fai-anymore-38025567.html

D14Rugby

Irishmale0399 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/international-soccer/sport-ireland-chief-john-treacy-john-delaney-is-not-a-part-of-the-fai-anymore-38025567.html

Still there

John Delaney isn't part of the FAI anymore. He is on gardening leave, or whatever the description is

Irishmale0399

D14Rugby wrote: »

Still there

John Delaney isn't part of the FAI anymore. He is on gardening leave, or whatever the description is

I think that is the difference....yesterday he stepped aside and was on what one would call gardening leave.


Today he is not part of the FAI anymore.....would give me the feeling that they have pushed him to one side and are now trying to find the dirty to ensure they dont have to pay anything when they do push him the last few cm off the plank.

salmocab

Irishmale0399 wrote: »

I think that is the difference....yesterday he stepped aside and was on what one would call gardening leave.


Today he is not part of the FAI anymore.....would give me the feeling that they have pushed him to one side and are now trying to find the dirty to ensure they dont have to pay anything when they do push him the last few cm off the plank.

The article says he’s on gardening leave so I’d say it’s no change

Arghus

Faith Some Loop wrote: »

because the mods are ignoring it as it is generating clicks and content. The usual story.

Trolls encouraged, those responding carded and banned.

I've come to terms with it at this stage.

It's actually entertaining to read the half-baked Pro-Delaney/FAI guff some are spouting on here being consistently and ruthlessly thoroughly debunked and dismantled by other more knowledgeable posters.

Haven't seen any cards or bannings, at least not for a long while?

irishgeo

D14Rugby wrote: »

Still there

John Delaney isn't part of the FAI anymore. He is on gardening leave, or whatever the description is

gardening leave, means he still getting paid his probably reduced wages, i wonder is his rent still being paid.

OldMrBrennan83

Arghus wrote: »

I've come to terms with it at this stage.

It's actually entertaining to read the half-baked Pro-Delaney/FAI guff some are spouting on here being consistently and ruthlessly thoroughly debunked and dismantled by other more knowledgeable posters.

Haven't seen any cards or bannings, at least not for a long while?

If bannings and cards start getting handed out for opinions though, even if most don't agree, then it's time to shut up shop altogether. That's already creeping in to AH and PC all too often, don't need it in sport too.

Skylinehead

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

If bannings and cards start getting handed out for opinions though, even if most don't agree, then it's time to shut up shop altogether. That's already creeping in to AH and PC all too often, don't need it in sport too.

Keep your bullshit to feedback please. Doesn't happen.

OldMrBrennan83

Nixonbot wrote: »

Keep your bullshit to feedback please. Doesn't happen.

Go and lie in your piss, I was replying to a post clamouring for cards like everyone has to have the same viewpoint.

I don't agree with any of these pro Delaney posters but what's to gain from silencing anyone you don't agree with?

Bridge93

The FAI has turnover of over 50m. A 100k cheque that is properly debited and credited wouldn’t show up in their tests. Even if it did, unless it was labeled ‘Cheque from John Delaney CEO’ which presumably it wasn’t if no one knew about it then expecting it to pop up is a bit much. The cheque and it’s amount are the accounting problem per se. it’s the lack of disclosures required by Company law and IAASA

Arghus

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

Go and lie in your piss, I was replying to a post clamouring for cards like everyone has to have the same viewpoint.

I don't agree with any of these pro Delaney posters but what's to gain from silencing anyone you don't agree with?

But, I wasn't clamouring for cards?

jmayo

Chardee MacDennis wrote: »

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

A bit like the FAI then

D14Rugby wrote: »

Still there

John Delaney isn't part of the FAI anymore. He is on gardening leave, or whatever the description is

Ehh is this gardening leave like that experienced by teachers, gardai, etc where you still get paid but don't have to show up for work ?

OldMrBrennan83

I can't understand how it's all still so unclear at this stage. When they can get away with nobody actually knowing Delaney's situation under this much scrutiny from all angles then God only knows what they've got away with over the years.

Skylinehead

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

Go and lie in your piss, I was replying to a post clamouring for cards like everyone has to have the same viewpoint.

I don't agree with any of these pro Delaney posters but what's to gain from silencing anyone you don't agree with?

What cards? There is no cards. You're arguing nothing here.

Mod: Now like I said, immediately stop. That language is sure to get you banned, I'm sure you'll scream opinion at me afterwards.

Chancer3001

Bridge93 wrote: »

The FAI has turnover of over 50m. A 100k cheque that is properly debited and credited wouldn’t show up in their tests. Even if it did, unless it was labeled ‘Cheque from John Delaney CEO’ which presumably it wasn’t if no one knew about it then expecting it to pop up is a bit much. The cheque and it’s amount are the accounting problem per se. it’s the lack of disclosures required by Company law and IAASA

How would it not show up!? Sure people have access to.him spending 65 euro on petrol in MHR shop...

100k is substantial
The auditors should have picked it up

OldMrBrennan83

Nixonbot wrote: »

What cards? There is no cards. You're arguing nothing here.

Mod: Now like I said, immediately stop. That language is sure to get you banned, I'm sure you'll scream opinion at me afterwards.

If you're a mod then you should be showing a little more decorum than your initial reply in my direction rather than trying to goad such language.

Skylinehead

Nixonbot wrote: »

What cards? There is no cards.

Ok now it isn't true.

Chancer3001

I think he missed the word "IF" initially

Irishmale0399

Chancer3001 wrote: »

How would it not show up!? Sure people have access to.him spending 65 euro on petrol in MHR shop...

100k is substantial
The auditors should have picked it up

It depends on what the auditors are shown....I know companies I worked for in the past showed the balance at the end of the year, that was then cross checked to the balance sheet and that was it. The auditors dont look at every transaction f not instructed to do so and in many cases would only look for spot checks on certain items.
As I understand it the FAI were hiding behind the 24 accounts, each one with a different use and then they probably just supplied the auditor with the balances and the accounts for state funding which had to be detailed audited.
It looks very much as if the FAI were using LOI UEFA monies to keep afloat and were living it up on it whilst JD was out at grassroots level handing out tax payers money to keep his image.

Zebra3

Chancer3001 wrote: »

How would it not show up!? Sure people have access to.him spending 65 euro on petrol in MHR shop...

100k is substantial
The auditors should have picked it up

Yeh, maybe the auditors are in the wrong too.

Maybe.

But it won’t detract from the pile of stinking brown stuff that Delaney is in.

howiya

Chancer3001 wrote: »

How would it not show up!? Sure people have access to.him spending 65 euro on petrol in MHR shop...

100k is substantial
The auditors should have picked it up

Please don't conflate the Sunday Times having JD's credit card bill with an audit. They're two different things.

Re the €100k, under the companies act the obligation is on the company to declare the transaction. It's that simple.

Beasty

Let me give you my perspective on governance generally in Irish sport, Firstly to give a bit of background. I've been on both sides of the audit fence, albeit 30 years since I actually audited a business. Since then I've been on the receiving end of 30+ statutory auditors

I have also been on the national governance committee of a major Irish sport. That was on the back of getting involved in the removal of a major Irish sporting administrator (albeit he was then the global head of the sport in question - hence it's not too difficult to work out which one, and there is plenty of evidence on this site of my involvement in that particular campaign)

With a small number of exceptions, governance within major sports in Ireland has been generally poor. Most sports are starting to get their act together, and without doubt football has been the last major sport to turn its attention to this

Throughout the campaign I was involved in there were countless die-hard supporters of the sporting administrator in question. I know many of those supporters very well. I have a lot of respect for them. Their apparently blind faith in the individual in question had long-standing roots. It was difficult to debate with them, but equally it was very important to allow them to have their say. That helped avoid a perception there was a lynch mob out to get the individual.

I am still very close friends to those individuals. I still have a lot of respect for them. We have agreed to differ on the individual in question, but I do feel the sport has moved on since he was removed. There remains a lot to do over half a decade later, but it continues to head in the right direction

Continuity in the governing body is important. Removal of those opposed to change is moreso. This is all about the FAI, an it's Board and governance structures. Whatever failings there may have been at audit level are certainly important, but irrelevant in determining how he sport moves forward

In the meantime healthy debate is important. It will help inform the decisions to be taken, but also to highlight the problems that have arisen. I have no issue with anyone attempting to defend Delaney. I have a very different view, but do not believe anyone should be silenced in this discussion.

All of this is me posting as a user, and not as a site Administrator. However I would just add I am aware of the frustration of some over us allowing dissention in this thread. That is not as a result of any conscious action at mod, admin or office level. It's simply allowing people to have their say - that's what healthy debate is all about.

Ramble over:)

Beasty

Beasty wrote: »

It's simply allowing people to have their say - that's what healthy debate is all about.

The posts I objected to were the "you're all thick" and "you have your heads up your arses" type efforts.

I do not agree that they contribute to healthy debate. But nothing happened when they were reported. I'm putting that down to bad modding, not encouraging healthy debate.

They wouldn't be tolerated on the ManU or Liverpool threads.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

The posts I objected to are outlined in my reports, all of which have been roundly ignored by mods and admins.

There was a similar poster on the Brexit thread in Politics recently, hammering the same point, over and over, and ignoring any and all questions they didn't like or couldn't give a credible answer to.

It's fúcking infuriating, but it generates clicks and content, so a blind eye is turned.

Standard.

Seems it's ok for an Admin to "post as a user" and talk about the moderation of a thread, on that thread, so I'm following that lead here.

Chancer3001

Sinilar to brexit?

I started posting in this thread because it reminded me too much of the donald trump posts

TRUMP BAD. A.N.OTHER GOOD.

secman

Chancer3001 wrote: »

Sinilar to brexit?

I started posting in this thread because it reminded me too much of the donald trump posts

TRUMP BAD. A.N.OTHER GOOD.

Makes complete sense, thanks for sharing that, so relevant .........

Arghus

Chancer3001 wrote: »

Sinilar to brexit?

I started posting in this thread because it reminded me too much of the donald trump posts

TRUMP BAD. A.N.OTHER GOOD.

That's just gibberish.

The degeneration of the coherence of your arguments over the last fortnight or so has been pretty remarkable.

Beasty

A supporter of Trump, Farage and Delaney

Now that is the Holy Trinity


:pac:

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

Chancer3001 wrote: »

Sinilar to brexit?

I started posting in this thread because it reminded me too much of the donald trump posts

TRUMP BAD. A.N.OTHER GOOD.

you still haven't answered my question from yesterday.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

In the interest of clarity

You

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.

Me

This is not the story that was told to the JOC last week. Why are you making stuff up?

I expect you to ignore this again by the way, or come up with more bullshít.

salmocab

Has healy Rae had any more to say in the last few days?

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

salmocab wrote: »

Has healy Rae had any more to say in the last few days?

him and that other buffoon from Cork.

Irishmale0399

https://www.thesun.ie/sport/football/3998261/fai-complaint-not-related-john-delaney-loan/

"A well-placed source told the Irish Sun: “The auditors have raised something new with the FAI, and something potentially big. There could be something bigger than a €100,000 cheque.

“It is not about liabilities to a football club. The spend within football is all legitimate. It is about the current or previous accounting period (2018/19), and this failure could amount to a prosecution on indictment or summary prosecution.

“The worst may be yet to come.”

Cienciano

Faith Some Loop wrote: »

It's fúcking infuriating, but it generates clicks and content, so a blind eye is turned.

I'll tell you what's infuriating. I've read almost every post in this thread over the last couple of weeks except 1 posters who's on my ignore list because it's obvious what they're doing. But every time I come into this thread there'll be one post by them, but quoted and replied to by about 10 people I have to scroll past. Everyone knows what he's at, but you still fúcking reply! Why?

We're big boys here, if you cannot ignore a poster just stop replying to him and move on.

Chancer3001

Mr Delaney spelt out the circumstances as to how he came to cut the cheque making clear that the FAI had all but exhausted its €1.5 overdraft with Bank of Ireland on April 25, 2017.

As a result, cheques issued by the FAI may not be fully met, and as the body only had a few hours to resolve the issue, Mr Delaney decided to issue the cheque.

He demanded that the cheque only be lodged if needed and was told by the FAI's director of finance that it was needed to meet a payment to a third-party creditor the next day, April 26, 2017.

I posted the exact quotes before

artanevilla

Chancer3001 wrote: »

Mr Delaney spelt out the circumstances as to how he came to cut the cheque making clear that the FAI had all but exhausted its €1.5 overdraft with Bank of Ireland on April 25, 2017.

As a result, cheques issued by the FAI may not be fully met, and as the body only had a few hours to resolve the issue, Mr Delaney decided to issue the cheque.

He demanded that the cheque only be lodged if needed and was told by the FAI's director of finance that it was needed to meet a payment to a third-party creditor the next day, April 26, 2017.

I posted the exact quotes before

Why was this allowed to happen? Why were they overdrawn 1.5 million?

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

Chancer3001 wrote: »

Mr Delaney spelt out the circumstances as to how he came to cut the cheque making clear that the FAI had all but exhausted its €1.5 overdraft with Bank of Ireland on April 25, 2017.

As a result, cheques issued by the FAI may not be fully met, and as the body only had a few hours to resolve the issue, Mr Delaney decided to issue the cheque.

He demanded that the cheque only be lodged if needed and was told by the FAI's director of finance that it was needed to meet a payment to a third-party creditor the next day, April 26, 2017.

I posted the exact quotes before

That is not the scenario you made up though, where Delaney sat down with two board members and they discovered the shortfall together.

Delaney outlined that they approached him and TOLD him about it, and he wrote a cheque.

You made up a story for some reason, and I'm asking why.

Chancer3001

They sat down somewhere and discussed the shortfall. Ive no idea who approached who initially. Seems like a pointless piece of info?

3 of them met. Discussed the shortfall. Jd decided hed loan them cash. Nothing made up there.

As regars why it was allowed happen, this happens in organisations and businesses on a daily basis. They knew they had over 2m coming in soon to cover it all. Why does any organisation have an overdraft!? So you can live "on credit" for a while before income comes in

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

Chancer3001 wrote: »

Ive no idea who approached who initially.

Yes, you do, it was stated in the JOC, the board members came to Delaney and told him. He said in his statement that if they'd come a bit sooner he'd have been able to sort it sooner.

The false picture you painted was of Delaney and the Board Members sitting down and "spotting" the shortfall.

That was not true.

artanevilla

Chancer3001 wrote: »

They sat down somewhere and discussed the shortfall. Ive no idea who approached who initially. Seems like a pointless piece of info?

3 of them met. Discussed the shortfall. Jd decided hed loan them cash. Nothing made up there.

As regars why it was allowed happen, this happens in organisations and businesses on a daily basis. They knew they had over 2m coming in soon to cover it all. Why does any organisation have an overdraft!? So you can live "on credit" for a while before income comes in

That is just not true at all, it does not happen on a daily basis. Certainly employees do not lend their employers cash.