Printable View
I'm no fan of him but the story is a bit thin imho. We all know the FAI are in a lot of debt. It's little surprise this sort of bridging loan is needed from time to time.
That being the case there would be an obvious conflict of interest if he was doing this for profit, but he hasn't done that. He has given the FAI a zero interest loan they simply would not have been offered on the open market.
We don't know it was zero interest I think
It's also interesting that Delaney says it was a cheque - but they take five days to clear, so are hardly an ideal way to deal with a short-term cash flow issue?
Geysir's question as to how it all leaked is very pertinent too
Certainly possible that there's more to this than meets the eye.
The report I read in the Irish Times said the FAI accounts show a payment of 100k being received and a payment for the same amount going the other way a few months later.
https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/soc...medium=twitter
I'd do it myself if I had the spare cash but why spend a small fortune of FAI funds to go to the courts to suppress the reporting of it? People ask questions when there's no transparency and especially where there's a concerted attempt to conceal accounting matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by backstothewall
It's just so obvious the FAI accounts should be published as part of the annual report. Members have a right to know what's what.
'
How did they avoid a scenario where a salaried employee had financial leverage over the board of directors? Cashflow is one thing, but governance is another - and that's where I'd be looking if this was leaked to damage Delaney.
Couple of little facts to note -
At 31 Dec 2016, the FAI's accounts showed 900k in the bank
In March 2017, 50k attended a home game v Wales. Surely that had positive cash flows?
Yet a month later, the FAI was so stuck for cash it had to take a cheque from Delaney and wait 5 days for it to clear?
It was then repaid a week after the next home game v Austria
The Sunday Times article says Delaney suggests this first emerged in his case with his ex-wife.
Delaney payment a real issue
Emmet Malone reports that the "loan" was not accounted for in the annual accounts.
'There was none (no account) in the annual accounts that followed for the period – not even, somewhat bewilderingly, an acknowledgement that it happened – and there is still none now.'
That could be a part of explanation why the FAI took the (Delaney inspired?) decision to waste thousands of euros in the high court trying to suppress the story.
the FAIs 2016 turnover was reported to be €50m (a record high at the time).
I therefore cant believe for 1 second that they needed that €100,000 a few months later. Surely an organisation with such a high turnover would have no problem obtaining or extending a bank overdraft in anycase?
This has parallels with the recent Lowry case, where he put money in to his own company (though didn't take it back later) to redress taking personal payment of an invoice a few years earlier.
Lowry got a fine and a directorship ban. And that was about fair I thought.
A directorship ban was largely irrelevant to Lowry in his own company - but would it be more meaningful to the CEO of an organisation like the FAI?
I suppose a bit of proof, such as a copy of the bank statement for that month that the FAI were allegedly in desperate need of cash, is out of the question?
The case was taken by Delaney and not the FAI, according to the Sunday Times journalist,Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
That's even more bizarre. Going to the courts is just a trail of tears.
It's unlikely, but in the off chance that Delaney has to quit, would that mean he loses his peachy UEFA position?
There's no requirement that you are employed by an association to sit on the executive, as far as I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Does 'the money was only resting in the account' argument not hold weight anymore?
The accounts that matter are the annual accounts and the FAI's annual accounts would be bound by company law to record such a transaction.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinobohs
Reported in an indo article 'There no mention of the April 2017 bridging loan of €100,000 in the audited accounts presented in 2018 though the loan had been repaid by the year endŽ.
But is the omission that serious? money in, same money out.
Could JD be a saint .... in the disguise of a rogue?
From Emmet Malone's article the FAI statement (last sunday) 'said the chief executive had donated back his €160,000 earnings from Uefa to the FAI.'
At last, the (alleged) whistleblower emerges
'The Oireachtas Transport and Sport Committee will seek legal advice on the contents of a letter from an alleged whistleblower it has received in relation to the FAI.
The letter makes a number of allegations regarding governance at the organisation.
It's understood members of the committee will seek advice on the letter today.'
Interesting. Sport Ireland also want to investigate. https://www.sportireland.ie/Media/La...0on%20FAI.html
Hopefully the whistleblower has something more substantial and hasn't gone all in too early
Delaney is due to sit before an Oireachtas Committee on April 10th, which has already delayed before. Some awkward questions are going to be asked.
They need to be specific questions. If you're an obfuscator, then you can dodge awkward questions. Specific questions, requiring specific answers are what will kill him. The Oireachtas committee are unlikely to get rid of him, but they can force answers that will make it impossible for the FAI to retain him.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter
heard a member of the committee on the radio yesterday. most of the interview was the TD saying how great jd is and it was only his dedication to the fai that prompted the "loan". also said that jd needed to clarify the loan but you get the jist as to how it will go in front of the committee....