https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/51399e48-4838-11e9-ab90-7b64c665210d
Will Delaney survive against his latest scandal?
What was the cheque for? What is the big deal does anyone know? Was he not doing a good deed for his employer the FAI?
Not sure if this is a resigning matter per se but usually with these sort of stories it's a prelude to something bigger.....
Surprised it wasn't flagged in the FAI accounts...........but even more surprised that the FAI needed a Bertie style 'dig-out'.
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on March 18, 2019, 11:47:55 PM
Not sure if this is a resigning matter per se but usually with these sort of stories it's a prelude to something bigger.....
Surprised it wasn't flagged in the FAI accounts...........but even more surprised that the FAI needed a Bertie style 'dig-out'.
It wasn't entered into the accounts, 'twas a ghostly type of a bridge loan, therefore the speculation is more focused on John D hiding some of his lure rather thanthe FAI being cash starved. Rumour has it the Sunday Times were on to it because of a petition from the estranged wife, aka the ex.
Quote from: Capt Pat on March 18, 2019, 11:38:32 PM
What was the cheque for? What is the big deal does anyone know? Was he not doing a good deed for his employer the FAI?
At one level a director floating his employers to cover cash flow is standard, legal and not particularly interesting. Rates would be less than going to the bank
However the FAI had a full house the week before and he happened to be in the middle of a divorce. Nobody is suggesting there was no cashflow issue and he was effectively hiding cash until the ink was dry. Nobody.
Quote from: Main Street on March 18, 2019, 11:54:11 PM
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on March 18, 2019, 11:47:55 PM
Not sure if this is a resigning matter per se but usually with these sort of stories it's a prelude to something bigger.....
Surprised it wasn't flagged in the FAI accounts...........but even more surprised that the FAI needed a Bertie style 'dig-out'.
It wasn't entered into the accounts, 'twas a ghostly type of a bridge loan, therefore the speculation is more focused on John D hiding some of his lure rather thanthe FAI being cash starved. Rumour has it the Sunday Times were on to it because of a petition from the estranged wife, aka the ex.
If it had been repaid where would it go in the accounts?
If it was repaid withing the same year it wouldn't affect the Balance Sheet but it would have to be disclosed in a note to the accounts under 'Transactions with Directors'.
If this was an 'asset hiding' exercise from a hungry ex-wife then this is a slightly different matter. He would have to resign immediately.
But he won't - as there are jockey's nether regions softer than his neck.
Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on March 19, 2019, 12:30:32 AM
Quote from: Capt Pat on March 18, 2019, 11:38:32 PM
What was the cheque for? What is the big deal does anyone know? Was he not doing a good deed for his employer the FAI?
At one level a director floating his employers to cover cash flow is standard, legal and not particularly interesting. Rates would be less than going to the bank
However the FAI had a full house the week before and he happened to be in the middle of a divorce. Nobody is suggesting there was no cashflow issue and he was effectively hiding cash until the ink was dry. Nobody.
I'm not surprised nobody is saying that. That would be egregious behaviour from a respected public figure.
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on March 19, 2019, 08:09:19 AM
If it was repaid withing the same year it wouldn't affect the Balance Sheet but it would have to be disclosed in a note to the accounts under 'Transactions with Directors'.
If this was an 'asset hiding' exercise from a hungry ex-wife then this is a slightly different matter. He would have to resign immediately.
But he won't - as there are jockey's nether regions softer than his neck.
The term "brass neck" comes to mind.
The transaction was FAI confidential, according to the IT there was no mention of the transaction in the year's accounts.
The statutory obligations are outlined here
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2014/act/38/section/305/enacted/en/html (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2014/act/38/section/305/enacted/en/html)
Companies Act 2014 CHAPTER 6
Disclosure of directors' remuneration and transactions
Sport Ireland are calling bollix on the whole "FAI were in difficulty" angle
https://www.the42.ie/sport-ireland-john-delaney-fai-loan-4550918-Mar2019/
Quote from: Never beat the deeler on March 20, 2019, 05:35:12 AM
Sport Ireland are calling bollix on the whole "FAI were in difficulty" angle
https://www.the42.ie/sport-ireland-john-delaney-fai-loan-4550918-Mar2019/
They carried a record turnover into 2017 (Euros) and had a full house the week before. Its possible they had a short term blip of course, but that contradicts the 'we traded through tough times, stadium debt clear by 2020' line.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2LmNWeWwAI-x_y.jpg)
That is excellent!!
Will Delaney be locked up folks?
Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on March 19, 2019, 12:30:32 AM
Quote from: Capt Pat on March 18, 2019, 11:38:32 PM
What was the cheque for? What is the big deal does anyone know? Was he not doing a good deed for his employer the FAI?
At one level a director floating his employers to cover cash flow is standard, legal and not particularly interesting. Rates would be less than going to the bank
However the FAI had a full house the week before and he happened to be in the middle of a divorce. Nobody is suggesting there was no cashflow issue and he was effectively hiding cash until the ink was dry. Nobody.
Well, I heard it and from a relatively credible source- a national newspaper reporter. This was shortly after the story broke.