It's not Delaney's job to look a 5m gift horse in the mouth, nor is he responsible for the grubby affairs of Fifa.
However we do have the right and expectation that FAI financial affairs are run to accountable standards.
We may have varying opinion about Delaney as CEO, I shudder at the mere sight of his face in the media but afaiaa the FAI finances are transparent. Gripes for example are concerning the balance of income directed at the international game Vs the home game and the disturbing sight of the expanding cult of John Delaney.
as you say yourself we are just the little guy, so did anyone else actually really care except us about handball henry? it made good news for a day or two but after that others just moved on.Originally Posted by GypsyBlackCat
that being the case why would FIFA care so much about keeping us quiet. reality is they didn't really give a hoot and that's what annoyed most of us
You might wonder what the scale of payments/bribes was at in FIFA if John D could say, '5 will do us rightly' and Blatter doesn't blink an eye, he even assumes millions.
Is there anywhere we can see the accounts/finances?
They publish an Annual Review, which includes a financial review, but that isn't exhaustive by any means.
Delaney said that the independent auditors had said it's all above board, but who actually gets to see them?
I'd be interested in if/how the money is accounted for.
Anybody like the smell of fresh tippex?
Last edited by osarusan; 05/06/2015 at 1:10 PM.
There would have been minutes in place of a meeting where a bribe was offered?
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/socc...unts-1.2238001
Quote by John Delaney: It’s not about money. This is about sporting integrity.
But if it was, as Delaney says, legit then why wouldn't there be any.
Typical gombeen behaviour in a country full of them.
Thanks for the link.
From that link:
Very interesting indeed.In the Morning Ireland interview Delaney also stated that: “We have an AGM every year, our accounts are given to the public, our members. I don’t know what more we can do in terms of being open and transparent. Our members are very happy with the way the association is being run.”
Yet there appears to be no mention in the accounts for 2009 or any of the next four years of any money coming in from Fifa, whether as a loan, grant or legal settlement.
If the money was only written off in the wake of Ireland failing to qualify for the 2014 World Cup it might only count as income in last year’s accounts which have yet to be published.
FAI statement
In a statement released on Thursday night, the FAI insisted that the payment “is fully reflected in our financial statements which are audited independently”.
This suggests that the money was included under the heading “Operating Income,” a catchall section in which just about all income not specifically required to be listed elsewhere is lumped together.
If so, it seems remarkable that such a huge sum – more than 10 per cent of total income in an average year – would not have merited a specific mention and explanation from an organisation that claims to be transparent.
Quite a few other, much smaller grants, like one for €2,600 from the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs in 2011 do get a mention and even if the money was a loan, one of that scale clearly merits inclusion and explanation under the relevant sections so that the membership would be aware of it.
Either way, the suggestion that the transfer of money like this between two football organisations should be subject to a confidentiality agreement seems entirely at odds with a stated wish for transparency.
But the point being made was that Delaney should have refused the money and gone accusing Blatter of bribing him.
I'd be fairly sure that would be very difficult to prove.
Blatter's not that stupid that he'd minute "Offered Delaney E5m in bribe. Was refused"
That seems the best way to account for it in fairness.
Though if that's where it is, it begs the question of how he was going to explain it if Blatter hadn't been kicked out.
Although maybe a contingent liability disclosure could have been expected.
You're right, there are just figures but no accounts and probably much fog produced to hide the Aviva financial black hole.
We are told that the FAI accounted for the 5m by the FAI deep throat, who is actually Delaney in disguise doing his best Albert Reynolds impression.
“It’s reflected as a loan from FIFA initially in the accounts but when €1m of it was written off in 2011, and €4m was written off in 2013, it appears in the receipts as income,”
“€1m appears as turnover for 2011 and €4m of appears as turnover for 2013. It’s recorded under receipts or turnover,”
No he's not and neither, contrary to appearances, is Delaney. He should have known that such side deals (unspoken, unminuteable ) are kinda dodgy so he has no place to be spouting guff about the legitimacy of this sordid mess. He was correct that Blatter was an embarrassment but god almighty he's embarrassing the lot of us now.
I don't buy for a minute that dodgy John should be applauded for getting the FAI a few quid as a back hander - ah sure fair play to him didn't he show them boys in Switzerland a thing or two. That's the kind of brown envelope thinking that had the whole country screwed not so long ago, and then he has the gall to go on about integrity.
If there's any justice both he and Blatter will be gone soon.
The FAI and FIFA aren't stupid enough to type out 'a bribe of €5m was offered' but
Sepp Blatter kindly offered Mr lover lover man Delaney a 'loan' to assist with the construction of the Aviva Stadium on the understanding that the FAI confirm that they no longer pursue legal action against FIFA connected to the incident in Paris.
Or something similar will be on a Word file somewhere. I bet there is a paper trail. Were they upfront with the independent auditors?
"A few quid" - $5 million apparently for a cash strapped organisation. You must be a wealthy man to call that a few quid.
"backhander" - in what way was this an illegal payment ? For reasons already explained, it HAD to be confidential as otherwise everyone who lost to an offside goal, ball not over the line etc would be looking for their pound of flesh.
"didn't he show them boys in Switzerland a thing or two" - if you mean fighting for compensation, and being ridiculed in the process, for an appalling miscarriage of justice and being laughed at by the President of FIFA and his minions, and getting some compensation for Irish football for this behaviour, then yes I say fair play to him.
IF there was no personal reward and IF the loan was vetted and appeared in the accounts, I think it was an excellent days work. I I fail to see the lack of integrity.
CEO gets compensation for Irish football for Ireland being cheated out of place in World Cup - demands made for his sacking as a consequence. Huh.
Forget about the performance or entertainment. It's only the result that matters.
Why were we entitled to compensation? As if any court of law would side in our favour that we were entitled to compo because the match officials didn't spot two handballs? Mistakes are made every time an official steps over the white line.
Instead - here you go FAI. Have a cheque, stop rocking the boat by spouting nonsense and start tallying the party line like a good little organisation.
And who could blame them - We should be forced to give the money back now - otherwise FIFA have set a precedent.
Agree entirely. We've all seen how Legia nearly stymied the Champions League qualifiers back in August, by threatening to go to the CAS (and that was a result of their own error - inability to fill in a simple form), we've seen that the Uzbekistan - Bahrain game in 2005 set a pseudo-precedent for replaying a match in a WC playoff as a result of controversial decisions. We know that Blatter's comment about a request to be a 33rd team (which may well have been mooted in a private conversation between FAI and FIFA officials) sullied Irish football. Could the FAI have taken FIFA to CAS (or another similar body) for damages? Yes... Would they have been likely to win? No, probably not. Is it a pleasant way of conducting business? Arguably not... But after feeling "wronged" the FAI were entitled to seek a form of recompense be it financial or sport related.
There was a discussion between the FAI (who felt wronged / illegitimately denied a place at the WC) and FIFA (who probably felt France's qualification should stand, but wanted to avoid any protracted argument). Various options were discussed, probably including compensation, a possible replay, the 33rd team option, perhaps better seeding, (As an aside I believe we/FIFA started preliminary negotiations with CONMEBOL to be one of the two guests at the Copa America in 2011 - in the end it was Mexico's U23 (Olympic) team and Costa Rica (who replaced Japan), but Platini said he wouldn't allow a UEFA nation to be a guest). In the end a financial compensation package was agreed and it seems to have been used to pay down the stadium debt. These sort of non-disclosure financial payouts, compensating for "undue losses" to prevent legal claims are not that rare in other industries.
Hee hee a wealthy man, never been called that before. Feels good. In the grand scheme of things 5 million isn't that much, at least we now know our price. I wonder what the other recipients of FIFA's largesse have their price down for. As someone else has already said, Dodgy Delaney usually gets away with handing out a few cans of beer, same sh!t as Blatter only on a parish pump scale.
Off the books stuff, and until it shows up in the accounts is exactly what it is, I call backhanders. Maybe 5mil is too much for an envelope but I'm sure it would fit into a wee brown box.
I'd rather be laughed at by FIFA insiders, bad enough as it is, than by the rest of the world some of whom are actually deserving of respect. We are showing ourselves up to be an unreconstructed land of Gombeens and deserve all the ridicule we get.
If Blatter by his actions set precedents, FIFA would have to disband. The FAI received the money in good faith and used it for football purposes.
This will be regarded as Blatter pulling the wool over FIFA and if he can do that with Eur 5m in the blink of an eye, what other strokes has he managed. Delaney's rabbit pull was that FIFA lent the FAI $5m and Delaney admirably pulled out Eur5m.
From a business point of view you could argue that by not making the world cup due to refereeing negligence the association missed out on due revenues.
"[winners] would receive a total of $31m (£18.7m). The runners-up will get $24m, semi-finalists $20m and the quarter-finalists $18m each. Teams that reach the second round will get $9m and even those eliminated in the group phase will receive $8m. Each team have already received $1m from Fifa towards their "preparation costs"."
http://www.theguardian.com/football/...10-prize-money
And the above is just "prize" money, the relevant FAs would also be likely to get increase revenues from sponsorship, media rights etc.
I agree it would have been unlikely, but if the FAI felt like bringing legal proceedings they were entitled to do that (or threaten to do that), it would have been up to the courts to decide on the case for compensation, the amount of compensation and the billing of legal costs. It's perhaps a bit of a grubby way of doing things but many individuals/organizations use the threat of legal action to obtain recompense from other parties... For instance it's common place in America (not that I'm saying that's good).As if any court of law would side in our favour that we were entitled to compo because the match officials didn't spot two handballs? Mistakes are made every time an official steps over the white line?
You could argue that the stage of the incident was what made it different from a mistake " made every time an official steps over the white line". The decision was in extra time in a match which was very binary in terms of qualification for the World Cup, it was a sort of Cup Final if you will. A few years ago I think a ref gave a ghost goal for Reading in a league match vs Watford (I think there was a hole in the net or something), there was a degree of outcry, but there were many more league matches left in that season. If the ghost goal had been given in extra time in Watford's playoff final vs Crystal Palace (2-3 years ago) you would imagine the outcry would have been much bigger as there would have been so much more riding on the outcome of that decision.
But if it's minuted as a loan, you can't turn it down and openly announce blatter tried to bribe you. You'll get sued to high hell
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks