Read on Twitter
A thread on the FAI, the MOU and Governance
First off; I should acknowledge I& #39;ve got skin in the game. I& #39;ve come in as a Council Member in the last 18 months as a direct result of the reforms. I& #39;m also an academic with an interest in governance. I genuinely believe this is a great opportunity to reform Irish Football
After the FAI& #39;s issues crystallised in the last few years a comprehensive Governance review was undertaken. This was a great piece of work. Best examples of how these things should be done. Listened to everyone, took their time, issued a clear report https://www.fai.ie/sites/default/files/atoms/files/FAI%20Governance%20Review%20Group%20-%20Final%20Report%2021%2006%202019.pdf">https://www.fai.ie/sites/def...
Strong agreement all around that this was the model that needed to be followed. Put together and presented to stakeholders and the public in a very clear and transparent way. It pulled no punches either and made clear recommendations which it justified
This process has been continuing over the last while and we get occasional updates about how its going. Some elements have progressed more than others and some of the elements have been suggested to perhaps not be the right fit particularly around committee structure
Matters progressed, the financial situation became more pressing and a Government bailout was agreed with a number of stakeholders involved. From this came the MOU https://assets.gov.ie/49784/30b467b4a638458fa456032709b5f445.pdf">https://assets.gov.ie/49784/30b...
The MOU in the main lays out terms around the bailout and for most part continues in the vein of the Governance Review. It is entirely correct that there should be conditions attached to any use of tax payers money and frankly particularly so in the case of the FAI unfortunately
MOU states that the FAI must fully implement the Governance Review recommendations as a condition of the bailout - again an entirely fair and prudent stance to take. There is some divergence between the MOU and the Governance Review. MOU in some cases amends the recommendations
On the 10 year Rule Governance Review proposed a system whereby those with more than 10 years would be stood down in a staggered manner to aid succession. MOU proposes an immediate sweep. Latest soundings from FAI proposes an entirely separate fit and proper 3rd approach
On Gender balance Governance Review Proposes 33% representation, MOU proposes 40%
On the FAI Council Governance Review put in places changes and reforms. MOU proposes more and has a curious line questioning the future role of Council "if any"
MOU adds in a ban on past members of the FAI Board serving on committees which did not appear in the Governance Review but is difficult to argue with and would be an example of good governance
The make up of the Board is one which has perhaps caused the most controversy. Governance Review Recommendation 54 proposes 4 Indys. MOU says 6 giving Indys a majority when added to chair if they were seen as a bloc (which is unrealistic IMO)
The MOU makes a suggestion for further financial and internal controls within the FAI. All of these points are examples of good governance and again hard to argue with. The creation of a list of assets to potentially be disposed of could cause unease however
The MOU again makes some further recommendations in terms of Human Resources and once more these are hard to argue with and can be seen as an element of good governance and best practice
In the last day or so issues have come to light about the authority to sign the MOU and the extent to which board members have had scope to agree - this is very much a fluid part of the story so not much to say here for now
Ultimately the MOU predominantly adds value but clear questions arise in terms of why it deviated from the Governance Review (which was very transparent) in certain areas and what the justification for the divergences are
