The John Delaney Thread

[geysir]

By the way,the 3 have stepped aside and not resigned.
Two have resigned, the two token oldtimer honorary members, who have no role anyway.

[BonnieShels]

The last time you were here Bonnie (that was last january) you brazenly boasted that you would be more regular on the board. You have a serious dose of foot ie constipation.

Life gets in the way. Thankfully it has stopped getting in the way and JD's downfall is something that I need to be around for. :)

[jbyrne]

it looks like delaney is only stepping aside while the various reviews are undertaken. my money is on the reports vindicating him and he carries on as before. farce

[SkStu]

Life gets in the way. Thankfully it has stopped getting in the way and JD's downfall is something that I need to be around for. :)

Jesus, its like my dog has just come legging it up the driveway without a care in the world after being missing for a few weeks. I thought the trusty fecker was gone forever and am a mixture of delighted, furious and curious as to where the hell he has been and what the fck hes been up to.

[SkStu]

it looks like delaney is only stepping aside while the various reviews are undertaken. my money is on the reports vindicating him and he carries on as before. farce

Yeah, I see it the same way. Complete farce. Actually, that reminds me, what is Maxi up to these days???

[osarusan]

it looks like delaney is only stepping aside while the various reviews are undertaken. my money is on the reports vindicating him and he carries on as before. farce
Pressure needs to be maintained to ensure that there is an external/independent audit and not just some internal investigation.

[pineapple stu]

Sport Ireland saying they want a full audit before funding is restored. Good stuff if they can arrange it themselves

[the 12 th man]

Two have resigned, the two token oldtimer honorary members, who have no role anyway.

Says it all really.

[osarusan]

Sport Ireland saying they want a full audit before funding is restored. Good stuff if they can arrange it themselves
Yeah, I saw that, and it sounds good. In light of some of the stuff in the Sunday Times, it gets harder to refuse to accept a full audit.

Very hard to argue that you are working hard to regain the trust of Sport Ireland and the football community in general when you refuse to take the most obvious step in that direction.

[geysir]

Well we are talking about the FAI and they live in a reality of their own making, they don't see themselves as others see them

[BonnieShels]

How they brazened out today in light of yesterday's revelations is just quite something.

They never cease to amaze.

And all he's done is step aside.

I'm hoping the SI appearance tomorrow at the Cttee ramps up the pressure.

[BonnieShels]

Sometimes things need to get worse before they can get better.

This thread has always been gold.

But some quality stuff going back to 2016.

And how prescient from Le Canadien.

[geysir]

I'm just reading the final report of the day in the Indo and it looks to me that the positions were adversarial at the beginning of the day. Delaney on one side with his ever present legal advisor and the FAI on the other side with their legal advice. Just how the FAI got to the position where they agreed to release that bizarre statement is a mystery.

The amount the state offers in grants for football is miniscule. If the FAI were a decent frugal well run organisation, trying their best but coming under investigation for not being 100% flawless, they'd have every right to take the high ground and tell the legislators where to shove their grandstanding, as Conway tried to do after stating that the the FAI put in 4 euro for every one euro from the state.
"the activities of the FAI enable the state to achieve it’s policy aims. especially in the areas of health and social inclusion".

[dr_peepee]

Is the “stepping aside” terminology purely a mechanism to retain his UEFA position for a sustained period? His FAI role has to be untenable at this point.

[Scrufil]

My understanding is that in order to terminate Mr Delaney's contract the FAI must jump through the legal loops. First action is to suspend him, this suspension has been coined as 'Stepping aside'. Until findings are fully proved against him Mr. Delaney is entitled to be an FAI member albeit one in suspension. This could drag on and end up in a legal wrangle.

[pineapple stu]

Probably fair actually. General HR processes.

[Scrufil]

Geysir the money from Sport Ireland is small but the amount for Sports Capital Grants is the fling around money Delaney used to get people on his side. It appears to be in the €50 million region. Now consider how long that might have sat in an FAI account before payout came. There is always a way to delay a payout to the benefit of the account holder.

[BonnieShels]

Jesus, its like my dog has just come legging it up the driveway without a care in the world after being missing for a few weeks. I thought the trusty fecker was gone forever and am a mixture of delighted, furious and curious as to where the hell he has been and what the fck hes been up to.

I could say the same thing about your goodself.

Let us however rejoice in the downfall.

[geysir]

Is the “stepping aside” terminology purely a mechanism to retain his UEFA position for a sustained period? His FAI role has to be untenable at this point.
Regardless of his FAI appointment (or lack of), his Uefa position is secure until 2021. 'Stepping aside' is irrelevant re Uefa until that time. I get the feeling though, he's dicing with ignominy and risks losing the Uefa position.

[Cathalsmart]

Sport Ireland saying they want a full audit before funding is restored. Good stuff if they can arrange it themselves

Yep just give them enough time to burn all the evidence...

[centre mid]

He may also incur the wrath of revenue, if he was withdrawing company funds on a company credit card then he has a tax liability on it, would be funny to see him/the FAI get a full audit from revenue.

[Diggs246]

He may also incur the wrath of revenue, if he was withdrawing company funds on a company credit card then he has a tax liability on it, would be funny to see him/the FAI get a full audit from revenue.

Now your talking. Those funds taken out don't qualify as expenses. Therefore it's treated income which has a tax rate of circa 50% not to mention interest and penalties that have to be applied.

[jbyrne]

Now your talking. Those funds taken out don't qualify as expenses. Therefore it's treated income which has a tax rate of circa 50% not to mention interest and penalties that have to be applied.

he's no idiot and will have it all boxed off in some way. he may say the cash was FAI petty cash and have some way of backing that up.
i don't think any of the recent revelations will be enough for him to resign fully. he needs a push (a very big one at that!).

[Diggs246]

he's no idiot and will have it all boxed off in some way. he may say the cash was FAI petty cash and have some way of backing that up.
i don't think any of the recent revelations will be enough for him to resign fully. he needs a push (a very big one at that!).
Neither are the Rev they won't buy any of this ( it's wheather they act or not)

[centre mid]

he's no idiot and will have it all boxed off in some way. he may say the cash was FAI petty cash and have some way of backing that up.
i don't think any of the recent revelations will be enough for him to resign fully. he needs a push (a very big one at that!).

There's a limit to what revenue will allow you claim as a legitimate expense. You can't put in a receipt for every meal you've ever had. At some point it's just taking money out of the FAI which would be classed as earnings and be liable for income tax.

[pineapple stu]

I don't think there's a defined limit as such. If he was legitimately in meetings with people, he's allowed to claim expenses. He'd have to have details of who he met and why of course.

The petrol receipts are also potentially dodgy. You can't claim petrol as an expense unless you have a company car. Otherwise, you claim mileage. But certainly what was revealed implied small amounts of petrol, which means no car, which means not allowable

[centre mid]

I don't think there's a defined limit as such. If he was legitimately in meetings with people, he's allowed to claim expenses. He'd have to have details of who he met and why of course.

The petrol receipts are also potentially dodgy. You can't claim petrol as an expense unless you have a company car. Otherwise, you claim mileage. But certainly what was revealed implied small amounts of petrol, which means no car, which means not allowable

A limit as in before they will look into it, afaik its pretty much self assessment unless you start taking the mick, although I could be thinking of the self-employed.

[Diggs246]

I don't think there's a defined limit as such. If he was legitimately in meetings with people, he's allowed to claim expenses. He'd have to have details of who he met and why of course.

The petrol receipts are also potentially dodgy. You can't claim petrol as an expense unless you have a company car. Otherwise, you claim mileage. But certainly what was revealed implied small amounts of petrol, which means no car, which means not allowable
If there was no limit. People expense everything and pay no taxes

[pineapple stu]

Revenue don't get details of expenses though. So they'd have no way of knowing if he's claiming a lot or very little.

Fully agree though that they should be interested in this. They could easily write to the FAI asking for copies of all expenses claims for the past three years for example

[pineapple stu]

If there was no limit. People expense everything and pay no taxes
No - there's no limit on legitimate expenses.

Whether these were all legitimate is a separate matter

[centre mid]

Revenue don't get details of expenses though. So they'd have no way of knowing if he's claiming a lot or very little.

Fully agree though that they should be interested in this. They could easily write to the FAI asking for copies of all expenses claims for the past three years for example

They'd be in the audited accounts, they can ask for further details. The FAI have to keep receipts.

[pineapple stu]

Well yes, I know that.

But they don't get reported to Revenue like your pay does - so they've no way of knowing if you're taking the mick. Unless something like this blows up of course

[paul_oshea]

Interesting what Deloitte have done over the last couple of days, given what they said 7th of June 2018.

[geysir]

Would the personal expenses of Delaney on FAI business not be covered by the fixed per dium standard rates, whatever the revenue standards are set on?
And if Delaney spends on behalf of the FAI, then that's a FAI expense, even if it's a lavish 4 course meal for 6 homeless footballers.

[paul_oshea]

They'd be in the audited accounts, they can ask for further details. The FAI have to keep receipts.

Correct. Receipts need to be kept for up to 7 years for all audited and non-audited accounts. In some cases like TV and stuff like that Suits and clothes are expenseable for example. But the cash withdrawals are more difficult to prove if he didn't receipt everything up to the amount withdrawn from the ATM.

[paul_oshea]

Well yes, I know that.

But they don't get reported to Revenue like your pay does - so they've no way of knowing if you're taking the mick. Unless something like this blows up of course

Well they do. Unless you're taking the **** for years. They have loads of factors and measures. For example a standard contractor or consultant would have a limited set of expenseable items and on average wouldn't be more than a few thousand a year. They'd be recognised as such, based on income and revenue. If someone is expensing way more one year from the next, alarm bells will ring in revenue or if for example expected expenses total for a given type of organisation. This is exactly why they also carry out random audits, where this is happening and they feel the investigation cost meets the return.

If Deloitte were doing their job properly they would have taken copies of the credit card statements and queried those transactions. Most smaller companies will write BIK on those that are personal expenditure and then make them pay tax on it. Problem with the likes of Deloitte and the larger firms is theyll bill you on first day and walk out if the required information isnt there. Still getting their money so they dont care.

[pineapple stu]

So the Revenue amounts are generally allowances.

For mileage - yes, he's covered by that (unless he has a company car). So he can't claim petrol as well.

On lunch - not so straightforward. If you're off-site, you can claim whatever it is - about thirteen quid I think - for lunch without a receipt. It's enough to be able to show you were off-site that day.

But that doesn't stop you from charging a more expensive lunch meeting as expenses. You can't claim the allowance and give a receipt of course. But it's accepted that business meetings do often have to keep up appearances. So he could easily claim E200 for lunch if meeting, say, the head of UEFA in a top restaurant to discuss the Euro 2020 finals.

Similar story with hotels - there's an overnight allowance, but you can exceed it if you have a receipt. So again, Revenue won't have a problem with the Ritz. (On the flip side, I've heard of people away on work for a week claiming overnight allowance but being put up by a friend - means free money)

The big things at the moment are the cash withdrawals (sprays harder to vouch), the petrol, and the treatment of goods rent BIK (it appears no employer's PRSI has been paid)

Expenses could well be an issue too, but it would need an audit to ascertain what's legit and what (if anything) isn't

[pineapple stu]

Well they do. Unless you're taking the **** for years. They have loads of factors and measures. For example a standard contractor or consultant would have a limited set of expenseable items and on average wouldn't be more than a few thousand a year. They'd be recognised as such, based on income and revenue. If someone is expensing way more one year from the next, alarm bells will ring in revenue or if for example expected expenses total for a given type of organisation. This is exactly why they also carry out random audits, where this is happening and they feel the investigation cost meets the return.
No, they don't.

An employee's expenses are not returned or declared to Revenue.

Revenue right now have no idea what expenses he has claimed.

The auditors should probably have reviewed them briefly in their audit though.

[paul_oshea]

Ya i didnt say individual employees do, thats not my point. Expected expenses for a given organisation/contractor/ltd company whatever.

[BonnieShels]

Shane Ross has told the committee that the entire board are to step down.

[paul_oshea]

So the Revenue amounts are generally allowances.

For mileage - yes, he's covered by that (unless he has a company car). So he can't claim petrol as well.

On lunch - not so straightforward. If you're off-site, you can claim whatever it is - about thirteen quid I think - for lunch without a receipt. It's enough to be able to show you were off-site that day.

But that doesn't stop you from charging a more expensive lunch meeting as expenses. You can't claim the allowance and give a receipt of course. But it's accepted that business meetings do often have to keep up appearances. So he could easily claim E200 for lunch if meeting, say, the head of UEFA in a top restaurant to discuss the Euro 2020 finals.

Similar story with hotels - there's an overnight allowance, but you can exceed it if you have a receipt. So again, Revenue won't have a problem with the Ritz. (On the flip side, I've heard of people away on work for a week claiming overnight allowance but being put up by a friend - means free money)

The big things at the moment are the cash withdrawals (sprays harder to vouch), the petrol, and the treatment of goods rent BIK (it appears no employer's PRSI has been paid)

Expenses could well be an issue too, but it would need an audit to ascertain what's legit and what (if anything) isn't

Lunch is only covered if you are x number of miles and/or 10 hours away from your office/home. And its capped, as is dinner. However organisations usually have caps themselves below the threshold. But client entertainment is also limited per year but not per event/meal.

[paul_oshea]

Shane Ross has told the committee that the entire board are to step down.

How would FIFA see this? It sounds like government interference.

[pineapple stu]

Lunch is only covered if you are x number of miles and/or 10 hours away from your office/home. And its capped, as is dinner. However organisations usually have caps themselves below the threshold. But client entertainment is also limited per year but not per event/meal.

Client entertainment is not limited per year

[paul_oshea]

Client entertainment is not limited per year

Yes sorry youre right I was thinking about the limit on staff entertainment like christmas party or that is limited per employee to £150.

[centre mid]

How would FIFA see this? It sounds like government interference.

I think he's just passing information on, I don't think he (as an agent of the government) has told them to step down. The board has decided themselves to step down after the agm.

[paul_oshea]

Ya i read the article afterwards, the post was a bit misleading.

[SkStu]

Yes sorry youre right I was thinking about the limit on staff entertainment like christmas party or that is limited per employee to £150.

google is great, isn't it?

[paul_oshea]

I survived long without it. YOu and your ilk, such as delorean and most on here, thrive on it.

[DeLorean]

So, most people on an internet forum (including me) use Google. I'm trying hard to get offended but it's entirely accurate I'm afraid.

[marinobohs]

How would FIFA see this? It sounds like government interference.

I don't believe the Government have the authority to force out Delaney and/or the board.What they do have is the right to withhold public money and I can only presume that would be the leverage the Government would use to 'encourage' change.