Spondon Owl Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 Just now, mkowl said: Not that difficult really. Like I say this panel has zero jurisdiction in the real world - club might say we disagree with their judgement and keep the accounts as they are What are the legalities surrounding all this. If this is an accounting error presumably someone gets a rap on the knuckles whoever signed them off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellbeaten-the-owl Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 5 minutes ago, Essix Blue said: So our 2018/19 accounts that are due now will have to be redone? To include the stadium cash? No they don't the commission ruling has no jurisdiction on the accounts, I would assume it would be just an adjustment on the p&s submission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreshOwl Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 1 minute ago, Sergeant Tibbs said: Many a true word said in jest. I was being serious, I’m just accustomed to failure at this point with the club that it’s almost funny, hence the Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miffed Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 23 minutes ago, mkowl said: Yes - the current year figures will include it and the comparatives restated. Irony is the 31st July 2019 figures might have been filed today - on the presumption of business as usual. Might be interesting - will the Club ignore the Independent panel and say we still consider these are valid. They have no jurisdiction to say accounts are wrong outside this judgement call. Are you sure? The reason we got the EFL charge was because we HAD backdated it. Once its been backdated and included in accounts that have been signed off, surely thats it? The deed has been done so to speak. The reason it was backdated was to get around FFP. If the stadium sale gets moved back to the current financial year as a result.... surely we then breach FFP for the previous season and are back in a world of pain. Surely the backdated sale must stand where it is. Im not expert / accountant so happy to be corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt_1 Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 My enthusiasm for this club is at an all time low. Couldn't care less really. Cheers DC 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 1 minute ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said: you could have a 100 separate commissions looking at same evedence and come up with different "opinions" on when risks and rewards transfer. Which ever was initial decision went it was never going to be over at that, could be here in two years time with legal arguments going on around this. True - give me the same evidence I might have a totally different view. I have a real professional intrigue here And I don't think the auditors will meekly accept it given the potential ramifications to them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellbeaten-the-owl Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 Just now, Spondon Owl said: What are the legalities surrounding all this. If this is an accounting error presumably someone gets a rap on the knuckles whoever signed them off? Doesn't necessarily mean it's an accounting error, it's not black and white it's a judgement that auditors were happy with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 2 minutes ago, Spondon Owl said: What are the legalities surrounding all this. If this is an accounting error presumably someone gets a rap on the knuckles whoever signed them off? That is why it will go further. We don't know what the evidence is, what has made the panel decide this conclusion. It has no jurisdiction for any other purpose regulatory wise Given the ramifications then a balance of probabilities decision ain't good enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spondon Owl Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 Just now, mkowl said: That is why it will go further. We don't know what the evidence is, what has made the panel decide this conclusion. It has no jurisdiction for any other purpose regulatory wise Given the ramifications then a balance of probabilities decision ain't good enough I mean, I have no feel for this, but you'd imagine they have something pretty solid against us, which makes me wonder what the ramifications are for those involved in the accounting. Imagining not good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalthamOwl Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 I hope to God DC doesn’t have his name plastered across the new shirts for next season. Reckon that would really put people off buying them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellbeaten-the-owl Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 3 minutes ago, mkowl said: True - give me the same evidence I might have a totally different view. I have a real professional intrigue here And I don't think the auditors will meekly accept it given the potential ramifications to them Agree which is why I'd be shocked if comparative amounts restated in 2019 accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wizzard1867 Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 3 minutes ago, mkowl said: True - give me the same evidence I might have a totally different view. I have a real professional intrigue here And I don't think the auditors will meekly accept it given the potential ramifications to them I'm not sure Chansiri needs auditors. SWFC is not a plc. He's the only shareholder. He's the only major creditor. He's robbing himself largely. (Forgetting the over priced tickets us fans pay) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miffed Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 Just now, WalthamOwl said: I hope to God DC doesn’t have his name plastered across the new shirts for next season. Reckon that would really put people off buying them. Be careful what you hope for.... or summat like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 5 minutes ago, Miffed said: Are you sure? The reason we got the EFL charge was because we HAD backdated it. Once its been backdated and included in accounts that have been signed off, surely thats it? The deed has been done so to speak. The reason it was backdated was to get around FFP. If the stadium sale gets moved back to the current financial year as a result.... surely we then breach FFP for the previous season and are back in a world of pain. Surely the backdated sale must stand where it is. Im not expert / accountant so happy to be corrected. The reason it was included might have been that it was in accordance with accounting standards to do so. I don't think people can or should make sweeping assumptions on guilt or fraud or wrongdoing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalthamOwl Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 3 minutes ago, mkowl said: That is why it will go further. We don't know what the evidence is, what has made the panel decide this conclusion. It has no jurisdiction for any other purpose regulatory wise Given the ramifications then a balance of probabilities decision ain't good enough If we appeal and lose could we then be docked more points than -12? Do we have anything to lose by appealing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Costello 77 Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 I'm going to press my burning forehead into a cool wall..go to bed... get up tomorrow and think about the fixture list.. And then the rock and roll starts again.. like it always has... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellbeaten-the-owl Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 Just now, Ozymandias Owl said: I'm not sure Chansiri needs auditors. SWFC is not a plc. He's the only shareholder. He's the only major creditor. He's robbing himself largely. (Forgetting the over priced tickets us fans pay) Any company with a turnover over the ausit threshold require audited accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parajack Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 3 hours ago, IWEDFM said: As if it's not enough punishment having Monk in charge If he's still here next season we won't recover from that Yeah too true,i mean its not as though he kept Birmingham in the Championship when suffering similar.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spondon Owl Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 9 minutes ago, mkowl said: True - give me the same evidence I might have a totally different view. I have a real professional intrigue here And I don't think the auditors will meekly accept it given the potential ramifications to them What are those ramifications ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miffed Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 1 minute ago, mkowl said: The reason it was included might have been that it was in accordance with accounting standards to do so. I don't think people can or should make sweeping assumptions on guilt or fraud or wrongdoing. But people are claiming that now we have been charged with a points deduction for it, the stadium sale can magically now be included in this years accounts instead of being backdated. Meaning we cant fall foul when this years accounts are presented. How does that work? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now