Printable View
The auditors are independent and they say the grant money goes to where it is intended to go. Unless the auditors are prepared to risk their integrity and more, eg. cook the books and pull a fast one on behalf of the FAI, then it is very likely that the auditors are signing off, satisfied with the required proof that the money has gone to the intended targets.
Do we know who the auditors are?
Geysir is right of course (I was only being frivolous on the topic of money being spent on what it is being allocated for), although that doesn't address the substantial question which is the state of the FAI's finances and how they can cope with their debt burden. Their "we will be clear of debt by 2020" statements remind me of Lance Armstrong's "I have never failed a drug test". It's hard to believe in the absence of any further disclosure. And if it's true, then why not disclose more details?
I also stand by my other main contention which is that government oversight of a public money recipient is dreadful. They are one of the few stakeholders with the power and legitimacy to properly hold the FAI to account but they are either so used to bad governance among themselves or just simply disinterested in Irish football (very likely) that they couldn't be bothered.
There seems to be a few in government who are interested in soccer, but that's not the same as having the game's interests at heart. Still, is it a good idea to have the government itself holding sporting bodies to account, or is it better done by an independent panel free of political considerations?
I don't like governments getting involved in running sporting organisations. Sport is a highly charged and politically sensitive activity and organisations such as FIFA are probably right to insist on national associations being politically independent. That's not at all the same thing as saying that a recipient of public funding shouldn't be held to strict standards of accountability, transparency and operational efficiency.
I reckon (just my hunch) that the government would be well within its rights to ask tough questions of the FAI. In fact I'd frame it the other way around and look to be more actively supportive. Dangle a carrot of more funding in exchange for better governance, enabling the FAI to round up on the various vested interests and factions that hinder progress.
I don't see any reason why the government can't do something similar to what the British did: make any state funding contingent on sound governance and operational efficiency. Ideally theyd go even further and conduct a proper review of football organisation and governance. It might even help the FAI fend off difficult factions, but that actually assumes they would be interested in doing so. Charlie D asks if an independent panel would be a better option. Like who, Genesis (or whoever Alastair Gray is consulting for now?) :)
All the government has to do is conduct a proper consultation, ideally public. At least then the facts will become known. The British have offered recommendations not a dictat, albeit followed by a potential legislative intervention if the recommendations aren't followed! They did so via a cross-party select committee, a standard process here. I don't know what the equivalent is at home.
If a NGB is financially self-sufficient then the government is a less legitimate powerful stakeholder. Is the government not interested or close enough to ask tough questions, or is the FAI financially independent enough to be able to disregard the government?
Well I'm not advocating a role for government nor am I saying government can't hold bodies accountable. I'm just saying that politicians (rightly or wrongly) are accountable to local considerations, whereas an independent body theoretically looks at the nation's sporting good as a whole. If the goal of sports funding in this country is to promote participation and the overall physical health of the nation, there's an argument for keeping politicians out of the process entirely.
God, could you imagine what the Healy-Rae's would do if they were allowed meddle in sports?!!
Reinstate 'the ban' probably.Quote:
Originally Posted by peadar1987
At least they would let you could get p*ssed and drive to and home from the game!Quote:
Originally Posted by peadar1987
But only if you were from the country. Jackeens don't have the same drink-driving capability as people from Ballygombeen.Quote:
Originally Posted by gastric
I haven't heard about the the sports grant system being riddled with inefficiencies/corruption or the relevant recipients piddling it into areas other than intended, so I'd have to assume there's an acceptable degree of efficiency in the checks and balances that do exist. The problems I read about are to do with cutbacks.
In the main, the FAI's debt burden arises from infrastructure costs.
That 7.5% interest is high. They claim they can clear the debt in 6 years.
At a rough estimate I'd say that's €10m p/a, with the naming rights income in 2019, taking care of the interest accruing. That off payment level, definitely sounds unrealistic.
Wembley/Hamdump/that ground in Beal-fierste?Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
But seriously Abbotstown really is the middle of nowhere...
Not sure if this is the best place to post this and it does relate to England Matches not Ireland, however to me, it highlights that UEFA/FIFA may not get it all their own way nor indeed secure the monies that they think international games are worth and the monies the FAI are completely reliant on to have any hope of paying down the debt.
Admittedly this relates to tournament matches rather than qualifiers but its a setback to UEFA/FIFA nonetheless.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23288211Quote:
BBC
Fifa and Uefa have lost an appeal against a European ruling that the World Cup and Euro Championships must be shown on free-to-air TV in the UK.
In 2011, the European General Court said the UK could keep the events on a list of "protected" events of national sporting interest broadcast for free.
It means the two tournaments cannot be sold exclusively to pay-TV firms.
Fifa and Uefa had appealed, after saying they could not sell the events fairly for their real value.
But the European Court of Justice - Europe's Supreme Court - has now said the original decision in the General Court (formerly Court of First Instance) in 2011 was correct.
The BBC and ITV had already secured the rights to broadcast the football World Cup finals in 2014, and they were guaranteed of being shown free-to-air.
But there had been fears that moves towards a pay-TV model would have been in place in time for the 2018 World Cup in Russia, should Fifa and Uefa have won their case.
John Delaney wont have been including payments based on tournaments we wont qualify surely?! :D
Unless of course he thinks we are guaranteed 2 euro tournaments :D
No I just meant TV money from the qualifing campaigns. FAI are completely reliant on it and my concern is that they think they are going to get this big windfall when perhaps media broadcasters might not be willing to pay more than they currently do (67% uplift according to UEFA) or that the FAI's share would increase by this amount.
Im sure JD has included prize money up to at least Semi Final spots at all comepetitions in his business plan:)
Wembley is one of the great white elephant wonders of the planet, has a lifeline of 50 years, cost €1.15bn all told, and considering all the whopping problems with construction issues, costs and pitch quality, it made the FAI look positively Germanic in comparison, purring away with an almost seamless (by Irish standards) construction schedule, costing and quality return.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Dont know - i dont think its that bad of a stadium, and easy enough to get to considering London can get busy! How much rent do the FA pay on it?Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Rent :DQuote:
Originally Posted by bennocelt
after paying €1.15 bn to 'not look bad' and the transport infrastructure to be easy to get to, not to mention the umpteen pitch changes to facilitate the transition from the worst pitch in the western world to something not bad, you ask how much rent do they pay?
The estate agents must see you coming a mile off.
I've read talk that the FA actually saved a couple of hundred million on the construction costs of Wembley because the builder tendered a ridiculously low price and ended up losing money.
I heard that the fees alone (lawyers, architects, upfront finance fees etc.) for Wembley were higher than the total cost of the competing project in Birmingham.