Apparently several journalists weren't invited to the IRFU RWC debrief, suggesting very tightly controlled media strategy designed to avoid awkward questions.
Printable View
Apparently several journalists weren't invited to the IRFU RWC debrief, suggesting very tightly controlled media strategy designed to avoid awkward questions.
There is no comparison to the way the GAA and FAI conduct their AGMs and no comparison with the levels of financial transparancy. The GAA AGM takes 3 days and delegates from every county board are au fait with and participate fully with items on the agenda. The GAA central annual finance report accounts for expenses down to petty cash level.Quote:
Originally Posted by elatedscum
The FAI have been operating their affairs with a stalinist like cult of secrecy, dogged with obsessive control and persecution during Delaney's era, all hiding a scandalous level of financial deceptions.
Even with one of your examples at a local level in Galway, the GAA county board who misplaced the 2017 AGM minutes in order to hide some embarrassments could not hide what was in the 2017 annual accounts and after fobbing off questions for 18 months were eventually taken to task to reluctantly answer exactly what money went where.
Whatever happens, we're going to have to stop calling for management teams to be fired before the end of their contracts - that's getting pricey!
In the 2017 annual report, the directors stated [for each individual director] that they had provided the auditors with all relevant audit information. The 2018 annual report states that the directors had not provided all relevant audit information. Under the Companies Act, every director making a false statement is guilty of an offence carrying a fine of up to €50,000 and a prison term of up to five years.
Wouldnt it be great if this is the time that the authorities decide that an example needs to be set! Though guilt by not knowing is lesser than guilt by deception - with this in mind it really could be Delaney's neck on the line. Watch closely for disposal of assetts, transfer of deeds, or a move abroad to guage the eventual level of worry. My guess is that its already being done and those pension payments may not be of much use in due course.
And we also have to stop awarding contracts before the end of a cycle for fear of losing a manager. It's not as if there aren't a few lying around.Quote:
Originally Posted by samhaydenjr
mmmm..... serious rumours of at least a couple €100,000 in unpaid all ireland hurling tickets to croke park.... more than just "embarrassment" with that oneQuote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Brendan Menton just on RTE - he estimates the FAI debt at closer to €80-90 million...
Thats correct 92-94 million. I've done a summary up based off what a friend sent me which ill put up later.
https://www.fai.ie/sites/default/fil...ber%202018.pdf
Pervasive limitations. Operating profit seems to be down but a function of a 4m reduction in T/O did increase grants but whilst an 8m loss overall they could probably explain/get away with that if you didn’t know what was to come.
Net assets of 5m but tangible net assets of negative 50
Illiquid insolvent, No cash
55m Same gap in 2017 at 57m... overall nav down by 8m corresponding to the loss in P and L
Cash flow actually looks ok grants went up significantly so is that sustainable and/but they burned 1.4m but after repaying financing costs of 5m
They went up quite a lot so they must now need to start repaying loans and not just interest..doesn’t look sustainable, why did the grants go from 2-10m
True liability is 44m if you add back deferred income that’s probably from UEFA etc
32m bank debt with 29m due which drives a big chunk of the 55m net liability. Seems the banks have waived that covenant though so if that is pushed back into creditors greater than 1 year
Seems like the banks have left the technical breach in place but have not amended the covenants so it remains on demand..doesn’t look like they are calling the loans in as they have sat with the breach for 2 accounting periods but that could change
Notwithstanding that take out deferred income and 28m of bank loans if they aren’t going to be called and that net liability reduces to 15m
That’s your liquidation loss
Cover that with 2m of training grounds, they don’t own the Aviva only have a lease so they would forfeit that so no intangible, there JV is there share of income for gigs in the Aviva and they have NPV’d that to 24m
Then you add back 60m of off balance sheet op leases so overall the debt to be serviced is 92m on a business making losses of 8m...need a white knight
The bank debt/liquidity position is a worry and you'd envisage serious cost cutting. The banks will not look to enforce on their debt. The reputations risk of doing so would be catastrophic.
They are in hole of about 15m which is not insurmountable and that is on the basis the debt is restructured and the deferred income is solid (sponsorship/UEFA/FIFA). Leverage is off the scale
Theres two screenshots from page 11 of 37 i wanted to upload but dont know how.
We’ll soon be talking real money !
Woah - what just happened?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Donie Forde
55m was presumably at end 2018. There couldn't be another 30m or so since then?
A good listen which helps with the understanding of what was going on.
https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/add...dafi-1.4109370
I pointed it out above.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
What would they have on operating leases?
Probably any long term lease, in this case the Aviva with IRFU as landlord. Do they rent out in abbotstown or some long lease?
Ya Note 21 in the above link confirms it.
Fifa is preparing to sue its former president Sepp Blatter and the former Uefa president Michel Platini for a return of the 2m Swiss francs (£1.5m) paid to Platini in 2011, which led to the long bans from football for both men.
Fifa’s governance committee passed a resolution last month that because the money had not been repaid, despite it having been ruled an “undue payment” in proceedings of the ethics committee, Fifa should initiate legal proceedings. (Guardian)
Just wondering if, as reported, the FAI paid Delaney's personal legal costs they might like to consider going after him to return it? And any other personal costs.
Was wondering, too, about the nature of the settlement he got... If I were to held back key info or give false assurances in such a situation (e.g. I knew I was doing something illegal, but persuaded my employer it was just unethical) I would have entered into a contract in bad faith - surely I would be pursued for any money I received? And wouldn't have a leg to stand on?
New proposal to split the FAI into two organisations, one which will be state-funded to the tune of €10 million and cover grassroots football, the other which will be a private, commercially funded organisaiton to manage international/elite teams. Ross says it will be considered.
https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2019...ng-fai-in-two/
Quote:
The proposal, which was devised by FAI staff members, suggests that the state would fund a new body that would solely govern grassroots and community football.
The FAI would continue to look after the international representative teams and elite football.
The plan suggests that the Government would provide €10m each year to fund development officers and coaches at youth level while the FAI would fund itself through commercial deals.
On the surface it looks like a practical solution. However, I am not so sure how this would sit with, for example, the UEFA Hat Trick programme. Association's receive considerable sums of money for grassroots football. If a new body is created outside the FAI umbrella, such funding could be lost that grassroots football currently receives.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
The LOI would remain under the aegis of the FAI (that is, the part in charge of "the international representative teams and elite football") in such an arrangement right? The other entity (take your bets on the name now: Football Ireland? Department of Football? Soccer Republic?) would be for everything underneath I presume. But that won't solve the debt problem.