http://foot.ie/showpost.php?p=431900&postcount=2
Well said I would agree with you on JD and some of the other officials at the top table ... but leave it at him for now. As I have said before John Delaney has gone about his business in the words of an old Cowboy movie character
" they will pay for what they did to my Pa" ...he made a mess of Waterford United... as did John Byrne at Galway ....
The government should make it a condition of funding for Lansdowne that no confidentiailty clauses should be allowed for any employees as its the public that pay for the running of the FAI. The FAI belongs to the people it is not a private company and DElaney and others should not be allowed to treat it as their own business. All commercial dealings should be open and transparent. It would probably be a good thing if an annual independent audit had to be carried out and published in full outling reasons for all commercial decisions involving spending over a certain amount say €10,000. Also how tickets are allocated should be clearly explained on the FAI web site. Saying that i do believe that the girls in the ticket office do thier best to fairly allocate tickets for away matches when demand exceeds supply.
d E L A N E Y T O U T O U T
Anyone buying or selling tickets!!! :D :DQuote:
Originally Posted by thejollyrodger
Delaney Tout Out.........a typo I assume!! :)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...036139,00.html
Good article.
Much as everyone dislikes Delaney this has been happening for years & the next CEO when Delaney leaves will be the same. The FAI seems to be run like those new "democratic" countries like Usbechistan & places where when the President is elected he has so much power can stop anyone else replacing him. While the FAI top tier are democratically elected to also seems they have too much power that can waste money in this manner without being accountable to the grassroutes.
I like to compare the FAI with political parties but at least in a political party you have members on the bottom tier whereas in football those people play football & don't get involved in the administration...
Does anyone know what Eddie Cox did to get blacklisted?
I think this is too idealistic a view. The FAI belongs to the people as much as does the GAA, the IRFU, or indeed any sporting organisation. Also, there is no way the commercial dealings of any of these organisations can be open and transparent. After all, none of the other parties involved in commercial dealings such as sponsorship and merchandising would want their business in the public domain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Forever Dreamin
As regards accountability, the 'business' dealings of the FAI are conducted by the Executive, who in turn report report to the FAI Council, made up of all representatives of all interested parties, except supporters of the national team. All clubs and leagues are represented on that Council but the tens of thousands of supporters who turn up to international games home and away, and who generate the biggest income stream of all for the FAI, do not have a voice in the running of the organisation. It surely is about time that this group was represented on the Council (No!, I don't mean that pillock that gets himslef on the Late Late from time to time).
In respect of ticket allocation. I think you will find that the staff in the Ticket Office do not make decisions about allocation, they only administer the allocation after the decisions are made 'upstairs'. I believe you will find that the most influential figure in such decisions is (and has been for many years), Peter Buckley, who is now Commercial Director but who was previously Finance Manager. I may be wrong, but the only time I ever remember there being a published breakdown of the allocation of tickets was for the 1994 World Cup finals in the USA. I agree that type of information should be published for every game.
Finally, the article which generated this thread mentions Eddie Cox, of Bray Wanderers. Eddie is a gentleman and a real football man. He has, like his father before him, been at the hearbeat of Bray Wanderers for many decades. He got sucked into the Merrion Square politics, got a bit out of his depth and ultimately paid the price of not becoming a 'yes man'.
I don't know, with all the confidentiality clauses and secrecy I think they're more like the Stonecutters. It's pretty clear that there's weird stuff going on in Merrion Square. Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff!Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
And I want in.
If you read "Behind Closed Doors" you'll find that the delayed football gear in Saipan was Eddie's responsibility but it wasn't his fault and it had nothing to do with his departure I assume.
I suppose the gagging orders are an attempt to stop the leaks coming out of the FAI, which used to leak like a sieve, so there is some logic in them.
It still does leak like a sieve, only now all the leaks are orchestrated by Delaney himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlsFan
From the interesting info written in the Times article
Cox "received a substantial payoff when he left the association in December 2003. Conditions were attached to the money being paid out, namely that Cox keep his silence about what had gone on behind the doors at Merrion Square and agree to a wide-sweeping ban on being involved in any future FAI business."
I understand that to be that Cox sold away his silence and signed away any future involvement for substantial financial gain. Did he not have a choice?
Like, pay up my salary and lets leave it at that.
So now we have Kerr's lawyers reportedly looking for a 6 figure sum on his behalf over some insult taken from some general comments made by Delaney.
Imo, he doth protest too much about his own hurt feelings. Does the rapid response involvment of lawyers not put him at the same level as Delaney and co?
His contract was up, he was fully paid up, presumably received a few Euros extra and now it is perceived that he is chasing after another slice of the FAI sparse resources not unlike the many employees before him
Looks a bit like that. I really hope the FAI don't have to make yet another pay-off. If there's one thing that's really bugged me over the years is the huge pay-offs the FAI have had to make to ex-employess. Money that would have been better served going into the game rather than individual's pockets.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Surely his representation of Bray Wanderers has no conflict with any gagging order? I don't understand how both issues can be linked?Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
I think the issue was whether representing Bray W. at Eircom League AGM constituted 'being involved in any future FAI business'. Clearly, both Eddie and Bray W. thought it did not, but some person/people at EL or FAI thought it did.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Whether it constituted a breach or not of the gagging order does not interest me so much. If the man had not accepted a substantial bribe in the first place there would be no one to question his right to represent Bray or be a valuable voice in FAI meetings. The fact that he accepted the bribe undermines his credibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
I see your logic but I think I take the opposite view. If this Cox fella was allowed to tell his side of things when he left and the FAI theirs we'd all know what happened and that'd be the end of it. Now we have some type of big dark secret which we get snippets of in the paper.Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlsFan
I don't think that the leaks have dried up. The only reason we know about this or Brian Kerr's letter to the FAI is because of leaks. I agree with geyser though that this fella's moral authority on the issue is undermined by taking a pig payoff.
I think you are being unfair describing it as 'accepting a substantial bribe'. At the time he was sacked, Eddie Cox was full time employee of the FAI. His contract of employment was terminated without notice and he was losing his livelihood. His severance agreement included a 'confidentiality clause'. There is nothing sinister or illegal in this and confidentiality clauses are a regular feature of severance agreements in the business world.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
It does not automatically follows that the credibility of someone who accepts a severance package that contains a confidentiality clause is undermined because they agree to such a clause.
I accept that I am being somewhat harsh on the man, I am going by the info in the Times article which was introduced and accepted into the thread discussion. CoxQuote:
Originally Posted by Superhoops
"received a substantial payoff when he leftlthe association in December 2003"
and
"It also highlights the FAI’s unsettling penchant for spending large sums securing gagging clauses when the money could be used more productively elsewhere"
If as you say Cox was being sacked, then he had a legal right to his salary according to his contract. The words "substantial payoff" suggest to me he received extra on top to keep his gob shut and be uninvolved.
Because a gagging/uninvolved clause is legal and because a sweetner to accept the clause is legal does not mean in this situation that it is moral and even if it is regular practice in the business world does not make it any more right.
Could the pedandic world of the FAI hold as many secrets as MI5?
Ok confidentiality is one thing but to "agree to a wide-sweeping ban on being involved in any future FAI business." is another thing entirely.
I focus on this because I wonder what would the situation be in the FAI and with Delaney's imperial status if guys like Cox refused to be paid off to be uninvolved. Most of the ire expressed here is against Delaney. I wonder about the guys with votes who for whatever reason keep their mouths shut, their pockets full and raise the green card for the CEO and his fine tuning of the constitution. Surely Delaney would go ape after paying off Cox with FAI resources to go away to find he returned and could probably be raising a red card.
Interesting point, however in respect of raising a 'green' or 'red' card (in a vote situation - for example, if a vote of no confidence in the CEO of the FAI was called for) as a delegate of BW to the AGM, Cox would be voting in accordance with how he had been mandated by the club to vote and not in accordance with his personal feelings,After all, if a vote of no confidence in JD was called for he would hardly be able to report back to BW that he voted in favour of the motion 'because JD was part of the crowd that shafted me a few years ago' if BW had mandated him to vote aginst the motion. Delegates nominated by clubs to AGM's are accountable to those clubs for their actions at AGM's and are treading dangerous ground if they use such occasions to carry out personal vendettas.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Thanks for the clarification.