A secret?
Iād imagine every single set of financial statements you will ever see wonāt disclose counterparties to transactions because of confidentiality or other commercial reasons.
And the loan, when itās not being repaid, becomes income. Thatās what you do when you amortise a liability. What did you expect them to record it as? Iāll help you: it could either be an income or an expense - which one is more appropriate when theyāre receiving money?
[QUOTE=āRocko, post: 1153847, member: 1ā]
But the article from Henry Winter in the Indo is just absurd. Itās about betrayal and Richard Dunne and the supporters in fine voice. And frankly itās massively patronising. But the gombeens from the likes of YBIG are lapping it up and feel vindicated because an Englishman is telling them how it is.[/QUOTE]
So youāre getting upset about a Henry Winter article, a load of fucking eejits in YBIG and some cranks on Joe Duffy. Why didnāt you just say that in the first place?
I did, mate.
[QUOTE=āRocko, post: 1153878, member: 1ā]A secret?
Iād imagine every single set of financial statements you will ever see wonāt disclose counterparties to transactions because of confidentiality or other commercial reasons.
And the loan, when itās not being repaid, becomes income. Thatās what you do when you amortise a liability. What did you expect them to record it as? Iāll help you: it could either be an income or an expense - which one is more appropriate when theyāre receiving money?[/QUOTE]
The anti-Delaneyites coming across as a bunch of bitter bastards here.
[QUOTE=āRocko, post: 1153878, member: 1ā]A secret?
Iād imagine every single set of financial statements you will ever see wonāt disclose counterparties to transactions because of confidentiality or other commercial reasons.
And the loan, when itās not being repaid, becomes income. Thatās what you do when you amortise a liability. What did you expect them to record it as? Iāll help you: it could either be an income or an expense - which one is more appropriate when theyāre receiving money?[/QUOTE]
A ā¬5 million loan that may or may not have to be paid back depending on soccer results is surely something that should at least figure in the footnotes FFS.
Footnotes? Theyāre financial statements mate. Theyāre not a blog.
:rolleyes:
Most financial statements have notes. You are making a fool of yourself now.
Most financial statements have notes. You are making a fool of yourself now.[/QUOTE]
Did you miss the bit where it said it was reflected in the accounts as a loan initially?
So you donāt think there is anything worth further investigation in this?
Where did I say that?
You said it should have been in the accounts. I said it was.
I havenāt seen the accounts, nor have you. Iāve already said that itās an unusual enough transaction that itās worth looking in to how it was treated.
None of that is anything to do with the outrage over accepting the payment in the first place which is where most of the irritation seems to be. The accounting treatment is just speculation. Iām not saying it should be ignored, but when you read Henry Winter or listen to Joe Duffy or have a cursory glance at Twitter, everyone is upset about it for all sorts of conflicting reasons and yet theyāre all agreeing with eachother.
[QUOTE=āRocko, post: 1153901, member: 1ā]Where did I say that?
You said it should have been in the accounts. I said it was.
I havenāt seen the accounts, nor have you. Iāve already said that itās an unusual enough transaction that itās worth looking in to how it was treated.
None of that is anything to do with the outrage over accepting the payment in the first place which is where most of the irritation seems to be. The accounting treatment is just speculation. Iām not saying it should be ignored, but when you read Henry Winter or listen to Joe Duffy or have a cursory glance at Twitter, everyone is upset about it for all sorts of conflicting reasons and yet theyāre all agreeing with eachother.[/QUOTE]
Rocko how do you know if it was in the accounts if you havenāt seen the accounts?
[QUOTE=āRocko, post: 1153635, member: 1ā]The reaction to John Delaney confirming the receipt of the money from FIFA is strange. It began with outrage on Twitter, fuelled by misunderstandings, gathered pace from there and has culminated in a series of articles this morning that are completely misreading the situation.
There were those outraged because John Delaney had done something and they couldnāt quite work out what it was. But they were angry because others seemed to be. Self-appointed voice of the fans, YBIG, fell into this category, completely unable to articulate what it was exactly that had them ired, but John Delaney was trending and they were seething at something as a result.
There were those who called the payment a bribe. There seemed to be some original misguided assumption that Delaney had received the money personally. When that wasnāt the case, the label bribe hasnāt gone away. Cathal Devan in the Sun is leading that charge. Itās always a good idea to run a million miles from any public declaration from Cathal Dervan.
And then you have otherwise seemingly sane people who believe the FAI sold us out by accepting money. Henry Winter has a preposterous article in the Independent (and Telegraph) calling the FAIās actions a ābetrayal.ā Apparently, we will never āforget our disgust at Thierry Henryās cheating and the Frenchmanās attempt to console heartbroken players like Richard Dunne.ā
I thought we were told moved on as a nation since then. And then we have the aforementioned YBIG naively exclaiming excitement at this wonderful piece from Winter. Are we really that bitter about the handball since? Apparently so. Itās an embarrassing reaction. It was embarrassing then and itās embarrassing now. Frankly, getting ā¬5m for the hardship does nothing to dilute that but it is ā¬5m more than anyone could really expect the FAI to wrangle out of FIFA for a referee making a poor decision.
Winter, egged on by the morons on Twitter, goes further in his article. āThat hush money must feel like blood moneyā¦ [Henryās] unpunished offence handling the ball twice towards William Gallas to score and take France to the 2010 World Cup finals, was rightly deemed a crime against players like Dunne, against their own (magnificent and vocal) support and against the sport itself.ā This is a serious journalist apparently, and weāre talking about crimes and using the Irish support for a nonsensical emotional appeal.
And then Winter joins the bandwagon of those who seem to believe, rather ridiculously, that Ireland still had a route to the World Cup Finals after losing out over two legs.
āThe talk that night was of a replay. Take the money? Thatās laughable, contemptible, inconceivable. How could anyone with any soul or simple respect for their fellow-man put a price on the heartache suffered by Dunne, those fabulous fans and a sport craving probity? How could the FAI consider with a straight face investing that Fifa āloanā into any stadium used by players who dream of reaching a World Cup?ā
A replay was never on the cards. Itās an absurd notion. A legal case would have failed dismally. Obviously.
But this story got defined on social media initially when there was an outpouring of misunderstood reactions and has gathered pace from there. There are few actually taking stock of the fact that the FAI getting ā¬5m from FIFA towards the Aviva Stadium actually represents a good negotiation. A legal case would have been disruptive and bad publicity for FIFA but would have had zero chance of success.
Ireland were offered a FIFA Fair Play Award and ā¬5m for the disappointment at losing out to that poor refereeing decision, seemingly the only one in the history of football. The FAI declined the award and accepted the money. Any Chief Executive who had done the opposite shouldnāt really be in charge of an organisation.[/QUOTE]
Thatās a very well articulated post.
I agree with most of it - particularly about the writings on it. However like others on here, the FAI receiving 5m quid under the table to keep schtum from an organisation rotten to the core with corruption canāt sit right.
Need to amortise it
amorto for the FAI
[QUOTE=āRocko, post: 1153901, member: 1ā]Where did I say that?
You said it should have been in the accounts. I said it was.
I havenāt seen the accounts, nor have you. Iāve already said that itās an unusual enough transaction that itās worth looking in to how it was treated.
None of that is anything to do with the outrage over accepting the payment in the first place which is where most of the irritation seems to be. The accounting treatment is just speculation. Iām not saying it should be ignored, but when you read Henry Winter or listen to Joe Duffy or have a cursory glance at Twitter, everyone is upset about it for all sorts of conflicting reasons and yet theyāre all agreeing with eachother.[/QUOTE]
So to summarise;
FAI secretly receives ā¬5m from corrupt as fuck organisation, but because people donāt know the full details they should say nothing?
Should people not be outraged over the Denis OāBrien stuff because they donāt understand it?
If Denis OāBrien was funding the FAI would you be as quiet? Oh wait, well thatās a bad example.
[QUOTE=āJulio Geordio, post: 1153917, member: 332ā]So to summarise;
FAI secretly receives ā¬5m from corrupt as fuck organisation, but because people donāt know the full details they should say nothing?
Should people not be outraged over the Denis OāBrien stuff because they donāt understand it?
If Denis OāBrien was funding the FAI would you be as quiet? Oh wait, well thatās a bad example.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=āRocko, post: 1153878, member: 1ā]A secret?
Iād imagine every single set of financial statements you will ever see wonāt disclose counterparties to transactions because of confidentiality or other commercial reasons.
And the loan, when itās not being repaid, becomes income. Thatās what you do when you amortise a liability. What did you expect them to record it as? Iāll help you: it could either be an income or an expense - which one is more appropriate when theyāre receiving money?[/QUOTE]
Mr Delaney, qualified accountant, didnāt seem to be talking much about loans or amortising deferred income in his interview yesterday.
He seems more interested to tell the country how he stood up to the big bully Blatter and that he even managed to blackmail him into giving the FAI 5m.
He also lamented that an older guy would perve on a younger girl.
Wait a minute.
Delaney has been amortisising the Fai for years.
[QUOTE=āJulio Geordio, post: 1153917, member: 332ā]So to summarise;
FAI secretly receives ā¬5m from corrupt as fuck organisation, but because people donāt know the full details they should say nothing?
Should people not be outraged over the Denis OāBrien stuff because they donāt understand it?
If Denis OāBrien was funding the FAI would you be as quiet? Oh wait, well thatās a bad example.[/QUOTE]
I havenāt said they should say nothing. Iāve said a few times that I think thereās a worthwhile investigation to be done in how it was treated. Thatās not the reason for the uproar though. Iām astonished by the number of eejits talking of betrayal and sell-out and bribery. None of that is true and none of it has any relationship to the FAIās bookkeeping.
Iāve no desire to absolve the FAI of any bookkeeping anomalies. But the stuff being levelled at them so far is weird and largely irrelevant. Fellas getting annoyed that it was income and that it was amortised. I mean thatās laughable anger.
Just because you donāt understand something doesnāt make it wrong. It doesnāt make it right either of course. But maybe people will wait to see if thereās anything untoward in the financial reporting before jumping up and down about it. It strikes me that some have now latched onto that (which isnāt a new issue for the FAI) out of embarrassment because their original protestations about hush money and crap like that proved idiotic.