Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, Inspector Lestrade said:

I suppose rumours of administration is the next logical step for the conspiracy theorists amongst us in the present climate.

I can't hear you over my tin-foil hat.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

I suppose rumours of administration is the next logical step for the conspiracy theorists amongst us in the present climate.

 

Next they’ll be saying that the pitch is flat earth.

 

:duntmatter:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sonofbert2 said:

 

Next they’ll be saying that the pitch is flat earth.

 

:duntmatter:

To be fair, it is fake grass!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Kopparberg said:

Didn’t the chairman once say that he would put the club up for sale, at a fans meeting a while back? 

 

 

Thinking of buying it?  You might get a bargain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, royalowlisback said:

To be fair, it is fake grass!

 

Turf wars against a fake media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sonofbert2 said:

 

Turf wars against a fake media.

Or Turf accountants?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, soldierboyblue said:

The accounts have been signed off as a true record by HMRC hence no criminal charges. The backdating of the sale of the ground is not against accountancy rules and well to do individuals often stand up companies to move assets around in business it's nothing new. 

HMRC dont sign off accounts. 

Share this post


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

 

Hang on you verbally beat up people on here with gay abandon.   

 

I'd back you to get to the semis at least of a roasting thread competition.  

Not with agression though

 

I beat people up with undeniable facts

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Grandad said:

Not with agression though

 

I beat people up with undeniable facts

 

 

lol Well, at least you admit you beat people up.

Share this post


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

HMRC dont sign off accounts. 

I will quantify my statement - the auditors signed off on them

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, soldierboyblue said:

I will quantify my statement - the auditors signed off on them

 

I’d go further and say that the EFL also signed off on them too given the restrictions we were working under at the time.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Grandad said:

Not with agression though

 

I beat people up with undeniable facts

 

I really liked it when you wanted Sheridan as our next manager.

 

:duntmatter:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sonofbert2 said:

 

I really liked it when you wanted Sheridan as our next manager.

 

:duntmatter:

 

I'd still have him instead of Monk

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


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

 

I'd still have him instead of Monk

 

Dream Team together.

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

Likely timescales in my opinion:

 

June / July 2018 sale contract agreed between swfc and DC, this contract could have had conditions in that the completed sale would be through an as yet unincorporated company DC was setting up

 

This is point in accounts that the risks and rewards of ownership transfer from SWFC ltd to DC. So sale accounted for at this point.

 

July 2019 sale completed, with the incorporated Sheffield 4 ltd  and land registry updated.

 

2018 accounts likely signed off late as the auditors wanted post year end evedence of the completion before signing off the audit report.

 

Under no circumstances will the sale contract have been agreed in 2019 and backdated to 2018 that's not how things work and the auditors would have checked this.

 

 

 

 

The suggestion/implication that having agreed a contract effectively with himself in June/July 2018 that it then took him a further 12 months to legally finalise that contract with himself stretches credulity to the absurd. Do you think he played hardball with himself on certain clauses? Was he haggling the price with himself?  Or did he just not return his own calls for 11 months?

Edited by kobayashi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, kobayashi said:

The suggestion/implication that having agreed a contract effectively with himself in June/July 2018 that it then took him a further 12 months to legally finalise that contract with himself stretches credulity to the absurd. Do you think he played hardball with himself on certain clauses? Was he haggling the price with himself? 

 

Is that against the law or EFL rules?

Share this post


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

The suggestion/implication that having agreed a contract effectively with himself in June/July 2018 that it then took him a further 12 months to legally finalise that contract with himself stretches credulity to the absurd. Do you think he played hardball with himself on certain clauses? Was he haggling the price with himself? 

Or the fact that once the agreement was in place there was no urgent need to complete? What was the rush?  Perhaps was done deliberately as didn't want the change in the public domain any earlier than necessary? Perhaps had more important or pressing issues?

Edited by wellbeaten-the-owl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/07/2020 at 07:16, We'llNeverBeMastered said:

First and foremost, the EFL was created to look after clubs in the 3 divisions, that's it's sole purpose. So yes. 

 

It could be said that bringing a club to task for cheating their accounts to gain advantage over others would be satisfying that mandate......rather than turn a blind eye to a dubious chairman seeking to ******** on the rules then try and hide that in the books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

Or the fact that once the agreement was in place there was no urgent need to complete? What was the rush?  Perhaps was done deliberately as didn't want the change in the public domain any earlier than necessary? Perhaps had more important or pressing issues?

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps...

 

12 months, 52 weeks, 365 days to finalise what he had all ready agree with himself.

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps...

 

12 months, 52 weeks, 365 days to finalise what he had all ready agree with himself.

 

 

Why does it matter?, it's his money business to manage how he sees fit.

Not interested in slightest why, as long as agreement in place and sale accounted for correctly in accordance with FES102 then not really bothered.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...