Sad that his tenure ended this way, but there seems to be a culture of non corporate compliance & lack of proper accountability within Goal. For example, John O’Shea refused to publish his salary details. The company relies on public donations and that the public have a right to know how there money is being spent.

Too many chiefs not enough charity!!!

If only there was a way to cut out the middleman when giving to charity

We all know what sorted out this dispute, money, and probably lots of it.

No doubting the great work he did and he will always have a great legacy, but I’d love to see how much he earned since 1977.

I wonder if his daughter Lisa O’Shea will get his job ? Also, she should stop promoting her name in the radio ads for Goal – it’s a waste of valuable money & promotes her own career.

He earned silly amounts of money, what was it like €400,000 a year or something? How is that a charity, it’s more like a scam to me

Retirement my arse, no doubt a tidy little financial arrangement for this chap who always bothered me with his approach, in your face attitude. Perhaps the truth will surface one day. Nice pension to look forward to given the outrageous salary he was on and before the bleeding hearts have a moan, it was the public who donated to the destitute as Mr O Shea described Goals target audience.

There is clearly an urgent need for transparency, regarding senior executives pay within all charities. The publics trust is being severely threatened, by repeated stories of grossly overpaid charity workers. If I’m not mistaken, wasn’t it recently reported that one of Rehab’s senior executives was earning close to a quarter of a million?. How could this be?. What justification could there possibly be for plundering a charity of its financial resources to this unmelodic tune?. I don’t smell a rat as such. It’s much more like the smell of a new car, or, the scent of expensive Egyptian cotton sheets, or maybe the smell of first class air travel, or luxurious hotels, or fine dining, or the taste of fine wine?. I wouldn’t know, because I am unfamiliar with these scents. My guess is, that I am smelling the increasingly familiar stench of hypocracy and usury. I should add that in no way do I mean my comments to be directed at the personality mentioned in the above article. I do however, suspect that there are some within these organisations that are attracted to overpaid positions, not because of charitable concern, but rather because of personal greed. And possibly also because of a serious and callous personality disorder.

Well Neil. Are you in the charity business yourself?

A score draw!

This article claims he earned 98k a year:
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/how-much-does-giving-really-cost-2161786.html

Any registered charity should be forced to have full disclosure of all their accounts. All salaries, expenses etc should be public.

Everybody’s money is nobody’s money so just like the civil service they get to pay themselves what they think they are worth probably along with unvouched expenses

I know you shouldn’t judge book by its cover, but he doesn’t even look like a charity person to me lol. By the way, does anybody know what is the deal with those charity people stopping you for a chat in the city centre? Sometimes they are more pushy than street merchandisers in Egypt. I know its their job so I’m never rude to them, but its seriously annoying at times.

Please somebody correct me if I’m wrong but I think I once heard that once you are running a legal charity you are only obliged to hand over 80% for charity causes, the rest you get to keep. Like I said, please correct me if I’m wrong

Or perhaps if he wasn’t paying himself as much as we thought we would be very disappointed as we wouldn’t be able to point score.
Facts please.

You may well be right Gerard. I remember during the early eighties, a friend of mine was selling raffle tickets, for a pound, of which, she got twenty per cent and the rest went to the owner of the charity. During that period, he was only obliged to hand over one per cent of his “earnings”.to the charity. That meant that seventy nine per cent went into his pocket. The charity got one per cent. The sellers got twenty per cent. Because of the charitable status, tax was only paid on the one per cent. Negligible. To refer back to your point, if a charity was modestly successful and earned a million, then two hundred grand would not have to be accounted for. This is the rich and ripe plucking ground for the socially adept psychopath. They live for that twenty per cent that does not have to be accounted for. While doing so, they will destroy everybody and everything that gets in their way, without remorse, without conscience.

Read half this article before I realised it wasn’t John O’ Shea the footballer, how disappointed I was :)

Well Popsicle ,he gave to the poor unlike the last couple of taoisigh who took from the poor and still are and for what 250 k per annum . He deserved it he set it up

What caused all the deformities in children around the Chernobyl area then William?..