Jump to content

EFL commission independent ground valuation?


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, mkowl said:

And seriously the auditors have to satisfy themselves as to the integrity of any valuation. Entire auditing standard on it. 

 

I got a slapped wrist by my reviewer for not adequately assessing the integrity of a Barclays portfolio report a client had.

 

So, are you saying that these auditors will have made the correct valuation? If so, what type of body completes the valuation. Blundells don't get many football grounds on their books.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TodwickOwl said:

 

The EFL are above the law 

 

Hence why Forestieri is guilty of course

Not above corporate law though

 

And you are dealing with professional firms who have a professional reputation to uphold. Do you think they will sit quietly if challenged. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The auditors , in my experience, will have had to satisfy themselves that the valuation was correct. Notwithstanding the fact that the EFL accepted the accounts and withdrew the embargo. 

 

The auditors have signed off the accounts as a true account. I suspect it will be one of the big 4 accountancy firms who don’t just sign stuff off as a favour to the client. They have professional indemnity cover up to their eyeballs 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FFS, Championship down to League 2 are such easy targets. If they had any real intent on stubbing out naughtiness in FFP then look at the likes of Man City selling boxes for millions, hotdogs to owners for £6778888.50, onions extra at £467888.57,     I would bet my left ball that no real punishment will even fall upon a Premier Top 8 team.

 

Money talks and I’m afraid always will. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dronfield Blue said:

 

So, are you saying that these auditors will have made the correct valuation? If so, what type of body completes the valuation. Blundells don't get many football grounds on their books.

The auditor does not / can not prepare the valuation. 

 

They assess the integrity of the valuation prepared by the 3rd party. What was their qualification, what methodology did they use, was it truly independent, could alternative mechanisms be used.

 

It really is quite onerous especially given the impact on the accounts is so significant. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mkowl said:

The auditor does not / can not prepare the valuation. 

 

They assess the integrity of the valuation prepared by the 3rd party. What was their qualification, what methodology did they use, was it truly independent, could alternative mechanisms be used.

 

It really is quite onerous especially given the impact on the accounts is so significant. 

 

 

 

So the third party would have been a commercial property valuer then? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, NorfolkNChance said:

I suspect it will be one of the big 4 accountancy firms who don’t just sign stuff off as a favour to the client.

 

It’s not one of the big 4. I think it’s a local firm but they all operate by the same standards in any case. It used to be Deloitte who stepped down at around the time Mandaric took over I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NorfolkNChance said:

The auditors , in my experience, will have had to satisfy themselves that the valuation was correct. Notwithstanding the fact that the EFL accepted the accounts and withdrew the embargo. 

 

The auditors have signed off the accounts as a true account. I suspect it will be one of the big 4 accountancy firms who don’t just sign stuff off as a favour to the client. They have professional indemnity cover up to their eyeballs 

BHP based in Sheffield not big 4

 

But seriously if you can't professionally justify it, or done adequate work or not followed the relevant standards and EFL can show that - yep it will go a bit Pete Tong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dronfield Blue said:

 

So the third party would have been a commercial property valuer then? 

 

The accounts do not name the valuer but it would be usual to do so. 

 

The issue with Derby and ourselves is that accounting standards require where property is held at a valuation  for that to be regularly assessed and revised.

 

If that was the case why did the 31st July 2017 accounts only show 20m and within 12 months it was worth 60m.

 

Tbf it's a good question especially as the new accounting standards that came in heavily flagged this in 2017 

 

What could radically have changed in 12 months in terms of the value of a stadium

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mkowl said:

 

The accounts do not name the valuer but it would be usual to do so. 

 

The issue with Derby and ourselves is that accounting standards require where property is held at a valuation  for that to be regularly assessed and revised.

 

If that was the case why did the 31st July 2017 accounts only show 20m and within 12 months it was worth 60m.

 

Tbf it's a good question especially as the new accounting standards that came in heavily flagged this in 2017 

 

What could radically have changed in 12 months in terms of the value of a stadium

 

We're in the poo then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NorfolkNChance said:

Yeah big 4 or not auditors don’t put their neck on the line for no one. If it doesn’t look right they won’t sign it off.

Apart from Carillion and a few others recently 

 

It's a hot topic and serious questions about Auditing and regulation being asked now

Link to comment
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...