Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2016 10:04:28 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. Perhaps TW is trying to tell us something without telling us ? More likely he has told us something that he shouldn't have.
|
|
Captain Jayho
Andy Tillson
Straight outta burrington...
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 472
|
Post by Captain Jayho on Feb 18, 2016 10:08:11 GMT
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. Yes, that's what I would have thought. I don't know jack about accounts but I would have thought a simple check for an auditor would be to look at the previous end of financial year's shareholding, compare it to this year's reported shareholding and then make sure that any increase or decrease in the number of shares had been accounted for in the report. However I must now assume that Grant Thornton just take the report from Toni, rubber stamp it and hand it back before invoicing the club for their over-stated and over-charged time.
|
|
Thatslife
"Decisions are made by those who turn up"
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 669
|
Post by Thatslife on Feb 18, 2016 10:18:30 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, you know very well that to err is human but to really fu muck things up takes a computer.
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Feb 18, 2016 10:18:40 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! I think that is spot on, but we have to wait until tomorrow to see if we have a new investor/owner and IF a deal has already been signed or needs the Shareholders to ratify it on March 7th (the AGM).
I'm afraid my 5 shares will mean nothing if the current Board all vote in favour of the deal.
|
|
Captain Jayho
Andy Tillson
Straight outta burrington...
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 472
|
Post by Captain Jayho on Feb 18, 2016 10:24:51 GMT
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! I think that is spot on, but we have to wait until tomorrow to see if we have a new investor/owner and IF a deal has already been signed or needs the Shareholders to ratify it on March 7th (the AGM).
I'm afraid my 5 shares will mean nothing if the current Board all vote in favour of the deal.
Surely the error in the accounts is simply a red herring - since the club have now come out and said it is a mistake and have corrected it to give Nick his full complement of shares? Added to which is this not the 2015 accounts at which time Nick (I assume) wouldn't even have been likely to be talking to the mooted consortium or any major additional board members? The timelines don't seem to add up for the accounts issue to be related to any announcement tomorrow, surely. Happy to be corrected - as previously disclosed I know jack about this topic!
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Feb 18, 2016 10:34:14 GMT
I think that is spot on, but we have to wait until tomorrow to see if we have a new investor/owner and IF a deal has already been signed or needs the Shareholders to ratify it on March 7th (the AGM).
I'm afraid my 5 shares will mean nothing if the current Board all vote in favour of the deal.
Surely the error in the accounts is simply a red herring - since the club have now come out and said it is a mistake and have corrected it to give Nick his full complement of shares? Added to which is this not the 2015 accounts at which time Nick (I assume) wouldn't even have been likely to be talking to the mooted consortium or any major additional board members? The timelines don't seem to add up for the accounts issue to be related to any announcement tomorrow, surely. Happy to be corrected - as previously disclosed I know jack about this topic! Fanatical indicated that we may hear tomorrow if there is a new owner/investor, I agree with that possibility.
It has nothing to do with the accounts or revised accounts published but may explain why there was a "typo" mistake in the first set of accounts.
Do I believe it was a "typo" mistake. About as much as the camels that were spotted earlier today on the beach at Weston-Super-Mare.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Feb 18, 2016 11:16:24 GMT
Surely the error in the accounts is simply a red herring - since the club have now come out and said it is a mistake and have corrected it to give Nick his full complement of shares? Added to which is this not the 2015 accounts at which time Nick (I assume) wouldn't even have been likely to be talking to the mooted consortium or any major additional board members? The timelines don't seem to add up for the accounts issue to be related to any announcement tomorrow, surely. Happy to be corrected - as previously disclosed I know jack about this topic! Fanatical indicated that we may hear tomorrow if there is a new owner/investor, I agree with that possibility.
It has nothing to do with the accounts or revised accounts published but may explain why there was a "typo" mistake in the first set of accounts.
Do I believe it was a "typo" mistake. About as much as the camels that were spotted earlier today on the beach at Weston-Super-Mare.
'memories of Cheltenham'
'pick your seat'
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2016 11:29:03 GMT
I think that is spot on, but we have to wait until tomorrow to see if we have a new investor/owner and IF a deal has already been signed or needs the Shareholders to ratify it on March 7th (the AGM).
I'm afraid my 5 shares will mean nothing if the current Board all vote in favour of the deal.
Surely the error in the accounts is simply a red herring - since the club have now come out and said it is a mistake and have corrected it to give Nick his full complement of shares? Added to which is this not the 2015 accounts at which time Nick (I assume) wouldn't even have been likely to be talking to the mooted consortium or any major additional board members? The timelines don't seem to add up for the accounts issue to be related to any announcement tomorrow, surely. Happy to be corrected - as previously disclosed I know jack about this topic! I was pondering dates. They're the accounts to June 2015, but get signed off 'now', so the info on Directors and shareholdings might not be so time constrained. That would tie in with Colin Sexstone's appointment - this FY - being recorded. I don't know the rules, but that would make sense. It's all a mess. Of course, the root of the problem is that their track record is that they're probably spinning a yarn, so that, even in the Annual Report, we assume all is almost certainly not as it seems. PS: in my experience you don't rely on auditors to spot the mistakes or add value. I can think of a case where we went back to them with a gaff we'd spotted in what they'd just approved, and another when, following a change of auditor, we were told we'd been citing superceded standards for the past two years.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2016 11:33:24 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 Ha ha, indeed. For all NH's shortcomings, at least he doesn't spend half his time trying to censor the Internet. That's one step forward.
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Feb 18, 2016 11:43:21 GMT
I think that is spot on, but we have to wait until tomorrow to see if we have a new investor/owner and IF a deal has already been signed or needs the Shareholders to ratify it on March 7th (the AGM).
I'm afraid my 5 shares will mean nothing if the current Board all vote in favour of the deal.
Surely the error in the accounts is simply a red herring - since the club have now come out and said it is a mistake and have corrected it to give Nick his full complement of shares? Added to which is this not the 2015 accounts at which time Nick (I assume) wouldn't even have been likely to be talking to the mooted consortium or any major additional board members? The timelines don't seem to add up for the accounts issue to be related to any announcement tomorrow, surely. Happy to be corrected - as previously disclosed I know jack about this topic! Question is, when would the accounts have been put together. Most particularly, at what point would the shareholdings have been listed. I'd go with your theory, except that it's possible someone took the most recent figures when listing who held what. Maybe tomorrow will tell us something that helps make sense of it all. Or maybe not.
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Feb 18, 2016 13:20:41 GMT
I think that is spot on, but we have to wait until tomorrow to see if we have a new investor/owner and IF a deal has already been signed or needs the Shareholders to ratify it on March 7th (the AGM).
I'm afraid my 5 shares will mean nothing if the current Board all vote in favour of the deal.
Surely the error in the accounts is simply a red herring - since the club have now come out and said it is a mistake and have corrected it to give Nick his full complement of shares? Added to which is this not the 2015 accounts at which time Nick (I assume) wouldn't even have been likely to be talking to the mooted consortium or any major additional board members? The timelines don't seem to add up for the accounts issue to be related to any announcement tomorrow, surely. Happy to be corrected - as previously disclosed I know jack about this topic! The accounts are 'at a moment in time' which in this case was at June 2015. ( Eight months ago) Since then many things will have happened - some of which have to be noted in the report - but some (especially after the accounts were actually signed) will not have been reported. If shares have been transfered recently 1. the papers will not yet be at Companies House and 2. The fact may not have to be noted in the June 2015 accounts. Therefore it is possible that in error someone could easily have put the current (as of today) figures for shareholdings. We will wait and see!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2016 13:21:49 GMT
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 Ha ha, indeed. For all NH's shortcomings, at least he doesn't spend half his time trying to censor the Internet. That's one step forward. Who ordered the closure of the clubs forum and also banned individuals?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2016 13:34:42 GMT
Ha ha, indeed. For all NH's shortcomings, at least he doesn't spend half his time trying to censor the Internet. That's one step forward. Who ordered the closure of the clubs forum and also banned individuals? Fair point, but at least (closing the website) it was done and dusted. What amazed me about the other fella was that he seemed to spend a vast amount of time obsessing about it, banning people, removing references to another forum, threatening the SC with legal action, and generally acting in a paranoid and so obviously futile way. Scant, I know, and in no way absolving Higgs of much greater shortcomings.
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,166
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Feb 18, 2016 17:14:00 GMT
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'
It is a shame we only have the accounts for 1883. If we had the FC accounts under "creditors" you would see "Amounts due to group undertakings" for the same amount as 1883 debtors. Effectively the FC owes that money to 1883. So effectively when the FC repays 1883 that company can repay it's debts. It is set up this way so that if the FC ever went bust then the good news is that the Mem sits within 1883 and should in theory be protected. 1883 produces two sets of figures including this one which is consolidated including the football club and other subsidiaries although FC is the only one that is trading at the moment. Before the MSP loan the directors were funding the club (and still are) together with loans from the bank and others. Courage brewery were repaid a while back I believe, the bank mortgage was repaid and Deltavon was part repaid. The accounts show the directors and others providing continuing support for the club.
|
|
|
Post by bluecamel on Feb 18, 2016 17:22:10 GMT
Surely the error in the accounts is simply a red herring - since the club have now come out and said it is a mistake and have corrected it to give Nick his full complement of shares? Added to which is this not the 2015 accounts at which time Nick (I assume) wouldn't even have been likely to be talking to the mooted consortium or any major additional board members? The timelines don't seem to add up for the accounts issue to be related to any announcement tomorrow, surely. Happy to be corrected - as previously disclosed I know jack about this topic! Fanatical indicated that we may hear tomorrow if there is a new owner/investor, I agree with that possibility.
It has nothing to do with the accounts or revised accounts published but may explain why there was a "typo" mistake in the first set of accounts.
Do I believe it was a "typo" mistake. About as much as the camels that were spotted earlier today on the beach at Weston-Super-Mare. ........................ Yup that was the Bluecamel Clan - fair cop!!!
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Feb 18, 2016 17:38:45 GMT
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'
It is a shame we only have the accounts for 1883. If we had the FC accounts under "creditors" you would see "Amounts due to group undertakings" for the same amount as 1883 debtors. Effectively the FC owes that money to 1883. So effectively when the FC repays 1883 that company can repay it's debts. It is set up this way so that if the FC ever went bust then the good news is that the Mem sits within 1883 and should in theory be protected. 1883 produces two sets of figures including this one which is consolidated including the football club and other subsidiaries although FC is the only one that is trading at the moment. Before the MSP loan the directors were funding the club (and still are) together with loans from the bank and others. Courage brewery were repaid a while back I believe, the bank mortgage was repaid and Deltavon was part repaid. The accounts show the directors and others providing continuing support for the club. got it - thanks
|
|