The most basic fact remains unknown after RTÉ's latest statement on Ryan Tubridy’s unorthodox pay deal in 2020. While providing abundant detail on the background to the disputed arrangements, it fails to explain why the national broadcaster published misleading information for years about the star presenter’s fees.
In the heat of drama over the affair, this will be a lightning rod when the Oireachtas media committee demands answers from RTÉ at a politically-charged hearing on Wednesday afternoon.
Notably absent from that gathering will be Dee Forbes, the former RTÉ director general who signalled on Tuesday that she cannot attend the committee for health reasons. But if Forbes won’t be seen in Leinster House, she is all over RTÉ's statement and all over the Grant Thornton report on Tubridy’s pay that the broadcaster released at the same time.
Her position is that she did not act alone in agreeing special fees for Tubridy that have thrust RTÉ into a firestorm of controversy. That stance is upheld in the statement issued in the name of RTÉ interim deputy director general Adrian Lynch, which draws assorted Montrose figures onto the stage.
But his fundamental conclusion is clear enough: “No member of the RTÉ executive board, other than the director general, had all the necessary information in order to understand that the publicly declared figures for Ryan Tubridy could have been wrong.”
The absence of Forbes from the committee means the person who can probably do the most to shed light on why the broadcaster chose to hide key details from the public – with catastrophic consequences for its credibility as a journalistic institution – won’t be there.
Not that that will spike the politicians’ guns; there is plenty in Lynch’s statement and the Grant Thornton report to show the extraordinary efforts undertaken to provide additional money to Tubridy and conceal that fact within and outside RTÉ.
Not only was the Tubridy deal with Renault Ireland “cost neutral” to the car company, the State broadcaster turns out to have borne an additional €30,586 for the costs of delayed commercial sponsor events in 2022 for which Tubridy received €75,000 in 2020. The actual cost recorded in RTÉ's barter account was €47,477.
By the time of the events in question, Renault had already withdrawn from the deal and RTÉ had to pay Tubridy €75,000 per year in lieu of money he would otherwise received from Renault.
[ Timeline: Who did what - and when - according to the broadcaster’s reportOpens in new window ]
One of the most revealing passages in the report by Grant Thornton partner Paul Jacobs shows two invoices for RTÉ's payment last year of €150,000 for 2021 and 2022 “consultancy fees” to Tubridy did not mention his name.
Neither was he named in the “barter account” through which the payments were processed. Tubridy was described only as “the talent” in the report by Jacobs, just as the description “the talent agent” was applied to his agent Noel Kelly.
“On the balance of probabilities, the description on the invoices, ‘consultancy fees’ did not reflect the substance of the transactions,” Jacobs states. The forensic accountant goes on say “the talent agent did not provide consultancy” and “the talent did not provide consultancy”.
Jacobs adds: “The barter account statement issued by the barter company describes each expenditure as ‘fee agreed by director general’.” And there is more: “The barter account statement does not mention the talent’s name.”
Forbes, who declined to comment on Tuesday night on RTÉ's statement or the findings by Jacobs, seems to see little reason for anxiety in not describing the fees correctly.
“In response to sharing extracts of this report with the director general, the director general is of the view that I should find that there was no particular significance to the use of the term ‘consultancy fees’ on the invoices raised by the talent’s agent, and further that there was commercial sensitivity and commercial brand confidentiality that arose in respect of these invoices,” Jacobs says.
“Having considered this, in my opinion my findings … still stand.”
Given the extent to which people at the highest levels in RTÉ say they had no knowledge of Tubridy’s hidden payments, the use of the “consultancy fees” description certainly seems to have obscured what was going on as money flowed from broadcaster to barter account and onward to the agent and finally the presenter.
The same goes for the fact that Tubridy’s name wasn’t mentioned at all in the “barter account”.
All of this has created a world of pain for RTÉ as it grapples with a crisis of public and political confidence.
But it is clear from Lynch’s statement that the renegotiation of Tubridy’s contract in 2020 departed from its usual engagements with top-ten presenters. Such talks are typically carried out by the chief financial officer, with advice from the legal department. Describing “what was different” in Tubridy’s case, Lynch pinpoints Forbes by saying “the director general was directly involved in aspects of the negotiations”.
In effect there were two deals: the “five-year contract” between RTÉ and Tubridy and a “tripartite agreement” between Tubridy, Renault and RTÉ. The Renault arrangement came after the then RTÉ chief financial officer Breda O’Keeffe set out “a financial proposal to the agent” in December 2019 which included “a possible additional commercial agreement”, which became the tripartite deal.
“The director general verbally agreed (via video meeting) to underwrite the terms of the commercial arrangement. Present at this meeting was the director general, two representatives of the agent and the RTÉ solicitor,” says Lynch.
“This final aspect had been sought by the agent throughout the negotiations and there had been significant push back by RTÉ.”
So who else knew of the 2022 barter account payments?
Other than Forbes and the commercial director Geraldine O’Leary, Lynch says no member of the RTÉ's executive board – the broadcaster’s executive management team – had knowledge of the Tubridy payments last year through the barter accounts “or any of the circumstances surrounding those invoices”.
His statement adds: “The commercial director has stated that [her] knowledge of those matters was limited to the instructions received by her from the director general in connection with the payments in question.”
Such instructions were received when the arrangements “had already been negotiated and agreed, and to which the commercial director was not party”.
Because of his “editorial responsibilities”, RTÉ director of content Jim Jennings was aware of “elements” of the commercial agreement but not RTÉ's underwriting of it and received the tripartite agreement.
Lynch himself, in his previous role as director of audiences, channels and marketing, was aware of “elements” of the commercial agreement but not RTÉ's underwriting of it. He did not receive the tripartite agreement, the five-year contract or any side letters between the parties.
The stage is now set for a momentous committee meeting. Whether all the questions will – or can – be answered is another matter.
