It followed both the short-lived and ill-conceived Accountancy Foundation and a period of intense global regulatory failure. Everybody wanted it to succeed. However, the past six months - and the Mayflower case in particular – have not been kind to the FRC.

Moreover, its problems increasingly appear to be of its own making and raise questions about the judgment of many of those involved. Having failed to uphold the charges it brought against former FD David Donnelly and auditor PricewaterhouseCoopers, the FRC and the Accountancy Investigation and Discipline Board failed to make their reasoning public. In doing so they earned the wrath of Baroness Noakes who, lest we forget, could be a minister responsible for the profession in any future Conservative government. Not a wise enemy to make.

It then admitted it had made no provision to cover the costs of the tribunal and, last week, issued a troubling statement about the Mayflower fallout. ‘The decision in this case gives rise to potentially significant implications for future disciplinary cases. The FRC is giving careful consideration to the implications of the Tribunal’s decision.’

Such a statement could be an attempt to prejudice future tribunals and is hardly an acceptance of the verdict in the case. It is a statement of the body’s unwillingness to learn lessons from it, and rather to wallow in self-pity.

Senior figures in the profession are beginning to question those who run the FRC, and the reluctance of senior figures to respond to events in the manner befitting a senior regulator, only lends credence to its critics.

comment@accountancyage.com