Jump to content

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Hookowl said:

 

Maybe the sale has been agreed but not completed for some reason. 

 

Backdating the economic effect of a transaction which hasn’t happened yet

In other cases it may be clear that the transaction has not happened yet. But there may still be a desire to backdate the economic effect. For example, an intra group transfer of business and assets may have been intended to take place on 31 March but could not take place then because regulatory approvals were not yet in place. Those approvals may be obtained in May, and the group may still want to be able to account for the transaction as if it happened as at 31 March.

You seem to know what you are talking about with this stuff, in your opinion when do you think this will come to fruition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Hookowl said:

 

Maybe the sale has been agreed but not completed for some reason. 

 

Backdating the economic effect of a transaction which hasn’t happened yet

In other cases it may be clear that the transaction has not happened yet. But there may still be a desire to backdate the economic effect. For example, an intra group transfer of business and assets may have been intended to take place on 31 March but could not take place then because regulatory approvals were not yet in place. Those approvals may be obtained in May, and the group may still want to be able to account for the transaction as if it happened as at 31 March.

The assumption has to be that the accounts aren’t filed because the auditor won’t sign off on a going concern basis. If the ground had been sold for a big profit then presumably this wouldn’t be the case regardless of whether it was booked in the last years accounts or not. So the assumption has to be that at least for now the ground hasn’t been sold.

Edited by kobayashi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DC owns a considerable number of shares shares in some huge companies including TUF properties, and several associated property companies including a 92% ownership of an architectural company and a marine craft company, so why would such a successful and very rich person then act as a front for another rich person and pretend to be the owner of an English football club?

 

I know conspiracy theories are a big thing with us Wednesdayites, but the man is very rich and he owns our club, along with the ground and various other associated bits of property. I would much rather the bloke be a very well known Sheffield lad, but he isn't. He is a very wealthy bloke from Thailand and he is willing to spend a big lump of money getting us back into the prem.

 

If he can do that without crippling the club, then good luck to the man. If he can't, then we are back to roughly where we were when MM stepped in and saved us. I cannot see DC walking away and leaving us in the mire. He would lose massive face doing that and as a big Thai business man he will not do that as long as he has enough money left to live on. 

 

Despite my many reservations about the bloke and his dodgy advisors, I think he is here for the long term. Hopefully that means success for us again.

 

UTO!  :Chansiri:  lol

  • Like 3
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ante's Bubbly said:

DC owns a considerable number of shares shares in some huge companies including TUF properties, and several associated property companies including a 92% ownership of an architectural company and a marine craft company, so why would such a successful and very rich person then act as a front for another rich person and pretend to be the owner of an English football club?

 

I know conspiracy theories are a big thing with us Wednesdayites, but the man is very rich and he owns our club, along with the ground and various other associated bits of property. I would much rather the bloke be a very well known Sheffield lad, but he isn't. He is a very wealthy bloke from Thailand and he is willing to spend a big lump of money getting us back into the prem.

 

If he can do that without crippling the club, then good luck to the man. If he can't, then we are back to roughly where we were when MM stepped in and saved us. I cannot see DC walking away and leaving us in the mire. He would lose massive face doing that and as a big Thai business man he will not do that as long as he has enough money left to live on. 

 

Despite my many reservations about the bloke and his dodgy advisors, I think he is here for the long term. Hopefully that means success for us again.

 

UTO!  :Chansiri:  lol

 

I think you can stop reading this one here if you know anything about the structure of the Thai Union Group.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, kobayashi said:

The assumption has to be that the accounts aren’t filed because the auditor won’t sign off on a going concern basis. If the ground had been sold for a big profit then presumably this wouldn’t be the case regardless of whether it was booked in the last years accounts or not. So the assumption has to be that at least for now the ground hasn’t been sold.

 

I'm not saying this is the case as obviously we don't know, but if DC is wanting to backdate the sale then this would have to be signed off by the auditors. They would have to be convinced that the accounting practices were correct.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, billyblack said:

You seem to know what you are talking about with this stuff, in your opinion when do you think this will come to fruition?

If it is the case the auditors have to be convinced the accounts are correct.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

The contact I am talking about is a fan of and connected to Birmingham City. He attended practically every home match and sat in the directors' box during the period immediately leading up to MM leaving. I don't think it was an act of friendship on MM's part. There must have been something more to it than that and is confirmed by something I was told whilst out in Asia.

I reckon it's the old man and the brothers Chansiri.

The consortium that is.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

I think you can stop reading this one here if you know anything about the structure of the Thai Union Group.

 

1 hour ago, Ante's Bubbly said:

DC owns a considerable number of shares shares in some huge companies including TUF properties, and several associated property companies including a 92% ownership of an architectural company and a marine craft company, so why would such a successful and very rich person then act as a front for another rich person and pretend to be the owner of an English football club?

 

I know conspiracy theories are a big thing with us Wednesdayites, but the man is very rich and he owns our club, along with the ground and various other associated bits of property. I would much rather the bloke be a very well known Sheffield lad, but he isn't. He is a very wealthy bloke from Thailand and he is willing to spend a big lump of money getting us back into the prem.

 

If he can do that without crippling the club, then good luck to the man. If he can't, then we are back to roughly where we were when MM stepped in and saved us. I cannot see DC walking away and leaving us in the mire. He would lose massive face doing that and as a big Thai business man he will not do that as long as he has enough money left to live on. 

 

Despite my many reservations about the bloke and his dodgy advisors, I think he is here for the long term. Hopefully that means success for us again.

 

UTO!  :Chansiri:  lol

Don't forget his massive shareholdings in drinks and transport companies:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, teddybeararmy said:

 

Don't forget his massive shareholdings in drinks and transport companies:ph34r:

 

Or indeed, why do this plethora of large companies that DC owns not appear as a sponsor in any way, shape or form? It would be much easier as far as I can see, to argue commercial rates with the EFL if the companies were actual, operating entities with a presence in the real business world!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ante's Bubbly said:

DC owns a considerable number of shares shares in some huge companies including TUF properties, and several associated property companies including a 92% ownership of an architectural company and a marine craft company, so why would such a successful and very rich person then act as a front for another rich person and pretend to be the owner of an English football club?

 

I know conspiracy theories are a big thing with us Wednesdayites, but the man is very rich and he owns our club, along with the ground and various other associated bits of property. I would much rather the bloke be a very well known Sheffield lad, but he isn't. He is a very wealthy bloke from Thailand and he is willing to spend a big lump of money getting us back into the prem.

 

If he can do that without crippling the club, then good luck to the man. If he can't, then we are back to roughly where we were when MM stepped in and saved us. I cannot see DC walking away and leaving us in the mire. He would lose massive face doing that and as a big Thai business man he will not do that as long as he has enough money left to live on. 

 

Despite my many reservations about the bloke and his dodgy advisors, I think he is here for the long term. Hopefully that means success for us again.

 

UTO!  :Chansiri:  lol

 

Ive heard he also owns a lot of shares in a Taxi conpany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a basic concept in accounting that you reflect the substance of a transaction not the legal form. 

 

So the fact it's not on Land Registry does not necessarily mean it could not be in the accounts 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, mkowl said:

There is a basic concept in accounting that you reflect the substance of a transaction not the legal form. 

 

So the fact it's not on Land Registry does not necessarily mean it could not be in the accounts 

ahh I see.....................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(I honestly f.ookin' don't really..but I like to pretend I understand all the legal jargon.....

 

Y'Know...

"Notwithstanding heretoforth the undermentioned will henceforward be known as the aforementioned in cases where the undermentioned were foretomentioned as not the undermentioned

Obviously with the caveat that hencetofowardly mentioned in the above mentioned are in facto....err....the ..ummm mentioned.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's not bought it, saw him at the ground and asked if he had, he just looked at me and laughed.  "As if I could afford to spend that amount of money'.

 

He wandered off pulling at his hair.

 

Close the thread.  

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mycroft said:

He's not bought it, saw him at the ground and asked if he had, he just looked at me and laughed.  "As if I could afford to spend that amount of money'.

 

He wandered off pulling at his hair.

 

Close the thread.  

 

 

Mycroft......

:Sid:

 

 

 

 

The Julian Assange of Owlstalk 

 

 

 

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mycroft said:

He's not bought it, saw him at the ground and asked if he had, he just looked at me and laughed.  "As if I could afford to spend that amount of money'.

 

He wandered off pulling at his hair.

 

Close the thread.  

 

 

 

Despite the tongue in cheek nature of that post, it was never the intention of Chansiri to buy the ground, as far as I can see. The club already "owes" him a substantial amount of money related to director loans. All he has to do is use some of the said money (which he was never going to get back anyway unless he sells up at a substantial profit or spends a few seasons in the PL) to "buy" the freehold a.k.a. debt to equity and create a false profit on the next accounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

Despite the tongue in cheek nature of that post, it was never the intention of Chansiri to buy the ground, as far as I can see. The club already "owes" him a substantial amount of money related to director loans. All he has to do is use some of the said money (which he was never going to get back anyway unless he sells up at a substantial profit or spends a few seasons in the PL) to "buy" the freehold a.k.a. debt to equity and create a false profit on the next accounts.

 

Exactly :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, OWLERTON GHOST said:

Mycroft......

:Sid:

 

 

 

 

The Julian Assange of Owlstalk 

 

 

 

 

There seems to be an Elephant in the thread

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, OWLERTON GHOST said:

Mycroft......

:Sid:

 

 

 

 

The Julian Assange of Owlstalk 

 

 

 

Julian Assange wikileaks

Mycroft my dabbers leaking

:tango:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mrs Blenkinsops shed said:

Julian Assange wikileaks

Mycroft my dabbers leaking

:tango:

 

Somethings shouldn't be said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mycroft said:

 

Exactly :wacko:

 

What I mean to say is he is not going to put more money in, just write off some of the existing debt against the purchase. It is more like an accounting trick rather than really buying the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...