The John Delaney Thread

So Delaneys not a director right. My first assumption on this was that its a form of Directors loans, where they are trying to avoid a higher tax bill. My second assumption is still similar thinking but not putting it up here.

THere is nothing sinister or pertinent about leakage. Mark is a fairly smart fella and did some good investigative journalism. Although it might be difficult to get tickets in the future :D

As I've said before this will have little affect on JD or the FAI. There's little appetite to replace JD and even less to find someone remotely capable.

The only way is if UEFA find him in disrepute. And i can't see that happening either. That or he murders someone :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

As I've said before this will have little affect on JD or the FAI. There's little appetite to replace JD and even less to find someone remotely capable.

---

I can think of a half a dozen people that post here that would be more capable than Delaney.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

So Delaneys not a director right. My first assumption on this was that its a form of Directors loans, where they are trying to avoid a higher tax bill. My second assumption is still similar thinking but not putting it up here.

THere is nothing sinister or pertinent about leakage. Mark is a fairly smart fella and did some good investigative journalism. Although it might be difficult to get tickets in the future :D

As I've said before this will have little affect on JD or the FAI. There's little appetite to replace JD and even less to find someone remotely capable.

The only way is if UEFA find him in disrepute. And i can't see that happening either. That or he murders someone :D

---

Delaney is a connected person to the FAI and a responsible part of the management.

Section 238 company act - loan that has been made by a director (or connected person) to a company or its holding company

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbyrne

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....

---

Committee also includes Ruth Coppinger, Imelda Staunton and Catherine Murphy, the last of which has already been on media making pointed comments about Delaney's actions. There are plenty of people on it who won't toe the "Ah sure he's grand" line that has sometimes been made around JD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

Delaney is a connected person to the FAI and a responsible part of the management.

Section 238 company act - loan that has been made by a director (or connected person) to a company or its holding company

---

How is he a connected party? (S220 of the same Act). Does he have more than 50% voting power (as in, himself; ignore his lackies)

In any event, he is a director of the FAI. Or certainly, he's described as such in the annual return of the stadium company

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

How is he a connected party? (S220 of the same Act). Does he have more than 50% voting power (as in, himself; ignore his lackies)

---

Fair enough, then he's a CEO aka managing director of a top 1000 company :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

I can think of a half a dozen people that post here that would be more capable than Delaney.

---

it would be tough from Canada, RAM. Thanks though.

[QUOTE=pineapple stu;1995574]How is he a connected party? (S220 of the same Act). Does he have more than 50% voting power (as in, himself; ignore his lackies)[/QUOT
If your deemed a shadow director, which he is, regardless of what's on the CRO. Your responsibile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

In any event, he is a director of the FAI. Or certainly, he's described as such in the annual return of the stadium company

---

I haven't a clue but it doesn't sound such a serious omission to me from a company accounts point of view, the accountant omitted to mention it in the report, but nothing devious (according to the accountant).
A mild slap on the wrist from the revenue inspector?

Of course there may other motives involved, as well as with the 150k free gift but I'd say that's outside the brief of these 2 committees. About the only smoking gun would be the a bank account statement from the time the FAI were supposedly on its knees and desperate for 100k.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diggs246

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

How is he a connected party? (S220 of the same Act). Does he have more than 50% voting power (as in, himself; ignore his lackies)

---

If your deemed a shadow director, which he is, regardless of what's on the CRO. Your responsibile

---

isn't shadow directorship a matter for Courts to determine? From what I recall on the law on this, it is also a particularly high threshold to prove.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

I haven't a clue but it doesn't sound such a serious omission to me from a company accounts point of view, the accountant omitted to mention it in the report, but nothing devious (according to the accountant).
A mild slap on the wrist from the revenue inspector?

Of course there may other motives involved, as well as with the 150k free gift but I'd say that's outside the brief of these 2 committees. About the only smoking gun would be the a bank account statement from the time the FAI were supposedly on its knees and desperate for 100k.

---

I have to agree generally with you on this. I just do not see a whole lot here that puts Delaney in jeopardy. That is not to say that there isn't more dirt to be unearthed or whistleblown on but, as it stands, this wont do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

Fair enough, then he's a CEO aka managing director of a top 1000 company :)

---

CRO doesn't care about CEOs or Managing Directors. If you're one of those but not a director, then disclosure rules don't apply. But I think he is a director, which moves it on to point 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

I haven't a clue but it doesn't sound such a serious omission to me from a company accounts point of view, the accountant omitted to mention it in the report

---

The accountant doesn't prepare the accounts. If the FAI didn't tell the accountants something, that's the FAI's fault, not the accountants'

That's why I referenced the Lowry case as a possible comparison - I agree it all looks relatively minor right now, but Lowry got a 5-year ban from being a director. That didn't hurt him, but it may hurt Delaney

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

The accountant doesn't prepare the accounts. If the FAI didn't tell the accountants something, that's the FAI's fault, not the accountants'

That's why I referenced the Lowry case as a possible comparison - I agree it all looks relatively minor right now, but Lowry got a 5-year ban from being a director. That didn't hurt him, but it may hurt Delaney

---

Then it's the FAI as an association would be responsible for the omission, not just Delaney?

I don't know the ins and out of the Lowry case but I'd say it included much more serious accounting issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

isn't shadow directorship a matter for Courts to determine? From what I recall on the law on this, it is also a particularly high threshold to prove.

---

No. Any investigating power can determine that he is a de facto director ( shadow) i.e. a liquidator or ODCE inspector etc . He could argue it in court etc but he wouldn't have a hope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

Then it's the FAI as an association would be responsible for the omission, not just Delaney?.

---

Its directors. Of which Delaney is one. (And probably really just Delaney as it was his transaction)

The Lowry case involved him putting money back into his own company. Similar to here, albeit that we don't yet know the background (ie the reason) to this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Its directors. Of which Delaney is one. (And probably really just Delaney as it was his transaction)

The Lowry case involved him putting money back into his own company. Similar to here, albeit that we don't yet know the background (ie the reason) to this case.

---

The Lowry case involved much more serious accounting issues, something similar to a non declaration of income , a deception which went on for 5 or so years and an attempted (botched) cover up after the fact was known.

I see now that the FAI as an association have stood up to fill in the breach, take responsibility and the flak, meanwhile Delaney takes cover. That's the smart sporting move.
Take the credit when your team wins, but struggles are a club issue.

My point is we don't yet know what the Delaney case involves.

Maybe it's similar, maybe it's not. If it is similar, then the question is what damage would Lowry's penalty do Delaney? If it's not similar, I can only imagine the Delaney case is less serious, and so any penalty would be too.

The only mitigating factor in that is the difference between Lowry's company (owned by him) and the FAI (a public body)

Quote all the acts you want. There is no difference.

No implications for either party as it was a simple interest free loan. No reporting obligations either. Once all completed within the following company accounts year.

Lowry's case was completely different.

You've ignored the first part of my post though - we don't know what the Delaney case is about

If it was a simple interest-free loan for quick cash flow - paid by cheque because that's naturally the quickest way of getting money into your account to deal with a short-term cash flow issue - then yes, it's completely different. Then the questions arise as to is the FAI insolvent and why would you renew O'Neill's contract before a play-off? And it should still be disclosed in the accounts; it doesn't matter that the balance at year-end was nil

But if there's some element of tax evasion in whatever arrangement was entered into, then no, it's not completely different. And it's worth someone checking that out because a 50m turnover company shouldn't have its easiest, quickest cash source as being a cheque from the director