Jump to content

Bigger Guns

Sheffield Wednesday Fan
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

341 Excellent

About Bigger Guns

  • Rank
    Sheffield Wednesday First Team

Recent Profile Visitors

1,354 profile views
  1. Yes but the EFLs terms and conditions are based on audited pre tax profit. I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand for you.
  2. Funnily enough that’s also a requirement for the auditors (the transaction at fair value). Take it from someone who actually knows what they’re talking about. I’m sure you will have seen the article on the BBC tonight. As I predicted in an earlier post Wednesday are going to sue the EFL for an unlawful charge. I will repeat again. The EFL cannot make Sheffield Wednesday restate their accounts. They must take them at face value. They’ve bitten off more than they can chew here and have picked the wrong guy to have a fight with.
  3. Yes I remember that, but I think it’s a completely different situation. Suspending someone for a few games is not going to dramatically change the outcome of a season. Docking points where there are no grounds for doing so brings the integrity of the competition in to question. Like I said previously this could all get very ugly for the EFL if we are not made to change our accounts.
  4. Some of the comments on here such as fraud and fudging the accounts are an overreaction and quite frankly ridiculous and could land one or two in bother. I’d urge anyone to be careful in making such comments. No denying that we have been reckless in our spending and we shouldn’t have to sell the ground to maintain compliance with FFP. However, it is a loophole and there’s nothing to say we can’t do it and according to the auditors it’s in the correct financial period at an appropriate value.
  5. I’m a chartered accountant and trained in audit. As far as I’m concerned until someone makes Sheffield Wednesday restate their accounts, which the EFL cannot do, there is no case to answer.
  6. Not if we aren’t made to restate our accounts. Could you imagine in court the EFL trying to argue they know more than a professional firm of auditors. They would get laughed out of court and it could turn ugly for the EFL because what they are accusing us of is defamatory. Would not be surprised if nothing comes of this and we sue the EFL.
  7. Same perspective. The EFL start with audited pre tax profits prepared on an FRS 102 basis.
  8. If you see my response to Kameron, there is no evidence that any regulatory body is involved at this stage that has the powers to make us restate the accounts. If that remains the case, our defence should be water tight.
  9. The EFL start with audited pre tax profit. The cash doesn’t have to be transferred for the sale to be included in the pre tax profit. Like I said so long as there is a legally binding contract as at the end of the 2018 accounts then it is correct to be included in the 2018 accounts. I would be staggered (being an ex auditor) if the auditors signed off the accounts without sufficient proof of sale being provided. If it turns out to be wrong then the auditors are finished because this will be massively in the spotlight. But, as I mentioned before the EFL do not have the powers to make us restate accounts. That is way above their powers and there is nothing to suggest that the regulatory bodies that could make us restate are involved at this stage.
  10. That’s not correct. Accounts are prepared on an accruals basis not a cash basis, that’s why there are debtors and creditors on a balance sheet. For a sale to be recognised all Chansiri has to do is prove that the risks and rewards of ownership have transferred from Sheffield Wednesday to Chansiri i.e. by having a legally binding contract of sale in place at the year end. It is irrelevant when the cash is transferred, when land registry was updated and whether Sheffield 3 was even incorporated. On the latter point Sheffield 3 could be unincorporated at the date of sale but still be in existence and nobody can prove otherwise. Regardless, Chansiri as owner of Sheffield 3 just needs a contract in place that he is going to purchase the stadium. That information won’t be in the public domain but if it exists (and I presume it does otherwise the auditors wouldn’t have signed off the accounts) then the EFL haven’t got a leg to stand on. The EFL does not have the power to make Sheffield Wednesday restate their accounts. They aren’t accounting experts and their powers start and end with the audited pre tax profits.
  11. Why do we have to have a thread every time Dawson makes a decent save. As brilliant as it was, any keeper in the football league is capable of making good saves - that’s why they are goalkeepers. It’s not just being a shot stopper that makes a top keeper and no one has ever said Dawson isn’t a good shot stopper. It’s the rest of his game that needs work i.e. distribution and claiming crosses. Not trying to bash the lad. He’s inexperienced in keeper terms and these things can be worked on, but why the need to point score because he made a good save. People have reservations on his other attributes and rightly so.
  12. That would be my 2 at present if we were to opt for a 2
  13. Fleck and Norwood have similar physical attributes to Bannan and hutch and have done it successfully as a 2 at times. You make a good point about supplementing with a narrow winger but again this is down to their tactics. The point is they have the ability to play as a 2 but for one reason or another our managers in recent times have not been able to get that out of them.
  • Create New...