The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Feb 17, 2016 18:52:53 GMT
1 Do you really think that NH does not know the result of the appeal? 2. The mistake in the accounts indicate that a third party could already own 3,000,000 shares and could be the 'new' investor yet to be announced. 1. No idea. 2. Quite likely. There's no way that could have been a typo with someone hitting one or two wrong keys - there's no correlation whatsoever between the old and new figures.Angas - what are you suggesting?
Try that one on the other forum and you will be lynched.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Feb 17, 2016 18:58:28 GMT
I still don't understand the debtor on the balance sheet though
Is that the £6mln figure that people have questioned under note 12 Debtors? The accounts that BRFC 1883 have issued are consolidated i.e. 1883 plus the subsidiaries. Note 12 illustrates the Group position and the company (i.e. 1883 Ltd) position. The £6mln is the amount owed by the subsidiary BRFC ltd to 1883 the holding company. that's the bit Chesh. To pick up on bits of my earlier post....
the key difference between the Group and Company statements seem to be the £6m due to the Company from 'Group undertakings' - pretty much unchanged from last year. This is a debtor on the Company statement, but not a creditor on the Group ones. I'm not sure what this is - something to do with the stadium, which is used as an asset to keep the club afloat?
pre-Wonga, it really was the directors and their financing keeping the club afloat. Presumably with some element of security/lien/collateral via the stadium £6m thing.
so I think I understand your consolidation point - there is a subsidiary about which I was unaware, and 1883 have loaned £6m to this BRFC Ltd subsidiary - which, when consolidated, falls out into a zero sum game. So two questions, possibly silly ones - do you know how that loan is structured, and (reading your post above) you state that 1883 is the Holding Company - so wouldn't that usually be 'Group'
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Feb 17, 2016 19:34:45 GMT
1. No idea. 2. Quite likely. There's no way that could have been a typo with someone hitting one or two wrong keys - there's no correlation whatsoever between the old and new figures. Angas I would say 1) NH does not know the outcome but perhaps his faith in the outcome could possibly be waning, just a thought. 2) I believe it looks like a part cut and paste job from the 2010 accounts. I would have thought if they were prepared on the basis of someone taking us over they would have taken most of the shares... Ah. Cut and paste would make sense. Going back five years doesn't, but it's easier to see that that could happen. Re someone taking shares - I'd expect them to take a round figure and leave NH with the odds and sods rather than a nice neat 1,500,000. Of course an investor might not share my logic
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Feb 17, 2016 19:38:58 GMT
I missed that. I only looked at percentages for this year and they were all the same in both versions, apart from one which I think had gone up slightly (can't remember who, one of the lesser shareholders.) But I thought I'd agreed your suggestion in 2 could be correct anyway? (Based on the fact that I don't see how the difference between the two figures given for NH's shareholding could have been a typo. It's not like someone hitting 9 instead of 0 or 8. The difference is very random - not even one number in the same place.) So I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Shame on you Ann, I spotted it. Ha ha. I'm afraid I don't look at things quite as closely as I used to.
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Feb 17, 2016 19:41:54 GMT
1. No idea. 2. Quite likely. There's no way that could have been a typo with someone hitting one or two wrong keys - there's no correlation whatsoever between the old and new figures.Angas - what are you suggesting?
Try that one on the other forum and you will be lynched.
No suggestion whatsoever. Just stating facts. But maybe it's lucky I never visit the other forum
|
|
dinsdale
Andy Rammell
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 495
|
Post by dinsdale on Feb 17, 2016 19:50:01 GMT
How much do we owe in total including tied up in the court case we are about to lose ?
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Feb 17, 2016 20:40:10 GMT
Angas - what are you suggesting?
Try that one on the other forum and you will be lynched.
No suggestion whatsoever. Just stating facts. But maybe it's lucky I never visit the other forum Ann, It's not so bad now. I do pop over especially on match days as there is more action though I asked the Mod to ban me as I didn't trust myself to not post there. I have to say that it seems better than it was and I can only see a couple of outright mischief makers. In a way I sort of wish I didn't feel compelled to use any forum & that I had a deeply fulfilling life instead . I had to find my feet on here as I wasn't used to a non aggressive forum. It does go quiet on match days though. I hope to be well enough to go again but I cannot put a date on that. I am really missing the games. Cabin fever is on maximum here,sad to say
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,166
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Feb 17, 2016 20:51:12 GMT
How much do we owe in total including tied up in the court case we are about to lose ? The accounts show nearly £6.9mln as at last june. Of course we could have started making money this year with the bigger crowds and the boxes selling better..... Not sure how much we would stand to lose if we lost the case. Someone said the lawyers were on a no win, no fee but we might owe Sainsbury cash if we lose and they are awarded costs.
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Feb 17, 2016 21:10:59 GMT
No suggestion whatsoever. Just stating facts. But maybe it's lucky I never visit the other forum Ann, It's not so bad now. I do pop over especially on match days as there is more action though I asked the Mod to ban me as I didn't trust myself to not post there. I have to say that it seems better than it was and I can only see a couple of outright mischief makers. In a way I sort of wish I didn't feel compelled to use any forum & that I had a deeply fulfilling life instead . I had to find my feet on here as I wasn't used to a non aggressive forum. It does go quiet on match days though. I hope to be well enough to go again but I cannot put a date on that. I am really missing the games. Cabin fever is on maximum here,sad to say I'm sure the other forum is fine. It's just that when it first started up I got the impression it was going to be mainly populated by the people who used to use the official forum. I hadn't been there for years (GD banned me, allegedly for swearing ha ha) and so I wasn't familiar with the usernames and couldn't be bothered working out whose opinion I rated and who was best ignored. I hope your health takes a turn for the better soon so that you can get back to enjoying matchdays as they should be enjoyed. Have to say it makes me chuckle when you talk about this being a non aggressive forum. It wasn't always that way and it may well not stay that way, so enjoy it while it lasts
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Feb 17, 2016 22:59:41 GMT
How much do we owe in total including tied up in the court case we are about to lose ? The accounts show nearly £6.9mln as at last june. Of course we could have started making money this year with the bigger crowds and the boxes selling better..... Not sure how much we would stand to lose if we lost the case. Someone said the lawyers were on a no win, no fee but we might owe Sainsbury cash if we lose and they are awarded costs. Sainsbury's have already taken out a charge on the Mem to cover their further costs of £699K, plus there's the MSP interest loan payment due this June, not forgetting the £2m written down costs of the UWE if we have to scrap the stadium plans.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Feb 18, 2016 0:59:12 GMT
Ann, It's not so bad now. I do pop over especially on match days as there is more action though I asked the Mod to ban me as I didn't trust myself to not post there. I have to say that it seems better than it was and I can only see a couple of outright mischief makers. In a way I sort of wish I didn't feel compelled to use any forum & that I had a deeply fulfilling life instead . I had to find my feet on here as I wasn't used to a non aggressive forum. It does go quiet on match days though. I hope to be well enough to go again but I cannot put a date on that. I am really missing the games. Cabin fever is on maximum here,sad to say I'm sure the other forum is fine. It's just that when it first started up I got the impression it was going to be mainly populated by the people who used to use the official forum. I hadn't been there for years (GD banned me, allegedly for swearing ha ha) and so I wasn't familiar with the usernames and couldn't be bothered working out whose opinion I rated and who was best ignored. I hope your health takes a turn for the better soon so that you can get back to enjoying matchdays as they should be enjoyed. Have to say it makes me chuckle when you talk about this being a non aggressive forum. It wasn't always that way and it may well not stay that way, so enjoy it while it lasts Thank you. That is very kind
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Feb 18, 2016 5:40:06 GMT
Shame on you Ann, I spotted it. Ha ha. I'm afraid I don't look at things quite as closely as I used to. But Angas you know how much we rely on you
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Feb 18, 2016 5:44:03 GMT
1 Do you really think that NH does not know the result of the appeal? 2. The mistake in the accounts indicate that a third party could already own 3,000,000 shares and could be the 'new' investor yet to be announced. 1. No idea. 2. Quite likely. There's no way that could have been a typo with someone hitting one or two wrong keys - there's no correlation whatsoever between the old and new figures. Perhaps TW is trying to tell us something without telling us ?
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Feb 18, 2016 5:46:33 GMT
I must admit I thought that as well. Part of my job is managing stock and I will admit I have entered stock wrong; 10000 instead of 1000 or 3000 instead of 2000. One keystroke and it is all wrong but how do you go from 1500000 to 4419828? weird. Epileptic fit maybe? I just knew someone on this forum would arrive with a logical reason, it sets us apart from all others
|
|
Captain Jayho
Andy Tillson
Straight outta burrington...
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 472
|
Post by Captain Jayho on Feb 18, 2016 8:57:39 GMT
It is very odd that such a glaring and inexplicable error could be made in the description of shares. As people have said, to go from the original number given to the one shown in here - www.bristolrovers.co.uk/news/article/bristol-rovers-share-correction-2958203.aspx - it is hard to see it as a logical keyboard error or similar. Am I right in believing that Grant Thornton audited these accounts? I mean I can obviously understand Watola making the mistake but was it also audited by GT? If so then they must have put the work experience kid on the job whilst the partners made the mugs of tea!
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Feb 18, 2016 9:22:32 GMT
It is very odd that such a glaring and inexplicable error could be made in the description of shares. As people have said, to go from the original number given to the one shown in here - www.bristolrovers.co.uk/news/article/bristol-rovers-share-correction-2958203.aspx - it is hard to see it as a logical keyboard error or similar. Am I right in believing that Grant Thornton audited these accounts? I mean I can obviously understand Watola making the mistake but was it also audited by GT? If so then they must have put the work experience kid on the job whilst the partners made the mugs of tea! Certainly its a great way of kicking off a conspiracy theory or two.
Personally I think its most likely that shares which Higgs does not own directly, but over which he has a controlling interest, were incorrectly not included first time. But who knows?
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Feb 18, 2016 9:24:51 GMT
It is very odd that such a glaring and inexplicable error could be made in the description of shares. As people have said, to go from the original number given to the one shown in here - www.bristolrovers.co.uk/news/article/bristol-rovers-share-correction-2958203.aspx - it is hard to see it as a logical keyboard error or similar. Am I right in believing that Grant Thornton audited these accounts? I mean I can obviously understand Watola making the mistake but was it also audited by GT? If so then they must have put the work experience kid on the job whilst the partners made the mugs of tea! GT can only state the information they have been told.
Why would GT think there was an error in the shareholding, they would not have a clue.
We may find out on Friday where the missing 2.9m shares have disappeared.
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Feb 18, 2016 9:28:38 GMT
1 Do you really think that NH does not know the result of the appeal? 2. The mistake in the accounts indicate that a third party could already own 3,000,000 shares and could be the 'new' investor yet to be announced. 1. No idea. 2. Quite likely. There's no way that could have been a typo with someone hitting one or two wrong keys - there's no correlation whatsoever between the old and new figures. and what it may well show is that the club now has a NEW major shareholder and the current BOD will stay - God help us!
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Feb 18, 2016 9:30:34 GMT
1. No idea. 2. Quite likely. There's no way that could have been a typo with someone hitting one or two wrong keys - there's no correlation whatsoever between the old and new figures. and what it may well show is that the club now has a NEW major shareholder and the current BOD will stay - God help us! and the NEW investor/shareholder will be announced at or before the AGM next month?
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Feb 18, 2016 9:58:06 GMT
It is very odd that such a glaring and inexplicable error could be made in the description of shares. As people have said, to go from the original number given to the one shown in here - www.bristolrovers.co.uk/news/article/bristol-rovers-share-correction-2958203.aspx - it is hard to see it as a logical keyboard error or similar. Am I right in believing that Grant Thornton audited these accounts? I mean I can obviously understand Watola making the mistake but was it also audited by GT? If so then they must have put the work experience kid on the job whilst the partners made the mugs of tea! GT can only state the information they have been told.
Why would GT think there was an error in the shareholding, they would not have a clue.
We may find out on Friday where the missing 2.9m shares have disappeared.
No the whole point of an audit is that the auditors have to take suitable steps to prove that the information they have been given is true & accurate. Otherwise there would be no point in having auditors.
|
|