Ron Springett In The Net - Sheffield Wednesday

514 posts. < 17 > Show 15 30 50 60

NewBack To Top

mkowl

3007906470164040_1.jpg

First used 10/08/09
21973 posts

Sheffield Wednesday
#241 05/12/2019 at 06:56

I am not convinced by the restraint of trade argument, because we would always be free to relinquish our EFL membership and set up with others an alternative League.

But that is for cleverer chaps then me to argue one day

As I say there are a lot of professionals with reputations on the line here and if they stick together as well and support the action. Thai custom is one thing, you take a pop at any accountant / lawyer / surveyor about the work they have done they simply ain't going to nod and smile. The lawyers were apparently DLA so not some High St chaps 

Happy clapping for 4 years more than Emre 

NewBack To Top

Tank_Owl

First used 09/08/15
981 posts

Sheffield Wednesday
#242 05/12/2019 at 07:38

Putting aside a second the did we /didn't we keep the EFL informed blah blah, they kpet saying on RS last night, well we knew the rules etc, so if we didn't like them.... If we didn't like them what? It's not exactly an option to go somewhere else is it, just imagine, errr Mr PL can we come and play in your league, err Mr Jockoland can we play in your league, fucking ridiculous point. It's almost duress in my book, as I say we have nowhere else to go. Let's face it, there's probably enough public record of our owner stating his frustration at the P&S rules to be clear he ain't happy and it's rigged towards the relegated PL teams.

I for one agree with intent of protecting clubs from bankruptcy but it's not exactly worked has it and all it's done in the Championship is create a more uneven competition  

NewBack To Top

Chelters

First used 16/05/19
79 posts

#243 05/12/2019 at 07:42



Be interested on your take on the sale of the property. What evidence you would be satisfied with that it was in the right accounting period in the absence of the land registry part.

mkowl, 04/12/2019 at 23:06


Well for a start, it must have been highlighted at the planning stage - or if not then at some point during the audit - that this transaction was going to be recorded. And as auditor I would be aware of the circumstances around that, the impact on users of the financial statements and the potential motivations for it being done in that way.

I would therefore have treated it as a specific risk item and given it extra audit attention accordingly. The paper trail would have to be clear in showing that the transaction belonged in that accounting year. So sale contract, payment of stamp duty, board minutes, title transfer etc would all be things I would ask for. Would I accept evidence that the transfer had happened in substance, e.g. an agreement between the company and DC as being sufficient? If I could be convinced that the company no longer had the risks and rewards of owning that asset at the year end then, yes, maybe I would.

Knowing the ramifications and the extra level of scrutiny on the accounts compared to a ‘normal’ private company I would be very aware of the issues I could face if the accounts later turned out to be incorrect in that regard. Knowing that, I would probably involve a colleague as an independent pair of eyes to give it a second sign off.

Like you, I find it very hard to believe that a decent firm like BHP would not have considered all of this very carefully before signing off.

What we don’t know and remains possible is that, for some reason, the EFL’s rules contain some specifics that could lead to a difference between the accounting treatment and what they will accept. I doubt their accounting knowledge matches that of the auditor and if the audited accounts are being brought into question then BHP (or, more to the point, their PI insurers) are not just going to roll over. As it’s not a public company I can’t see ICAEW getting involved unless someone complains to them. 

NewBack To Top

Reesh1867

3751125169228.jpg

First used 05/08/09

Sheffield Wednesday
#244 05/12/2019 at 07:48

I suspect BHP would have contacted their legal team as well for their own peace of mind.  

Consilio et Animis 

NewBack To Top

mkowl

3007906470164040_1.jpg

First used 10/08/09
21973 posts

Sheffield Wednesday
#245 05/12/2019 at 08:07

thanks Chelters - On reading the EFL rules then it does state the accounts are the starting point. The key potential adjustment is that they can substitute appropriate market value into the calculations not necessarily the figure in the accounts. Of course accounts can show a non market value for a transaction if the appropriate disclosures are made.

So there are 2 aspects to this

1) Is the transaction in the appropriate accounting year
2) Is it an appropriate market value

With 1) I am sure you would concur 99% of the time this would be easy, all the documents would clearly show this and those in the public domain eg land registry would support your view. I guess what people won't realise is that you would look beyond the year end to assess the transfer of risk and reward

With 2) much more interesting. If the valuation was being used to re-value in the accounts then the valuation mechanism used makes sense. A depreciated replacement basis. Whether I would substitute that for the sales transactional value - not so sure - but what would be the alternative "in use" value which is the appropriate method for me.

But its all about professional judgement, I am sure you have your files reviewed and have been questioned. Not an easy ride even if you are good at what you do. Tbh I was always a bit shit at auditing - well I could see the big picture just was not very good at documenting the detail so glad to be out of it 

Happy clapping for 4 years more than Emre 

NewBack To Top

CDLF

new-kit-4x3138-1744177_478x359.jpg

First used 07/08/09
13812 posts

Sheffield Wednesday
#246 05/12/2019 at 11:00

Call me an old cynic but 1) EFL hold Chansiri's hand throughout the stadium sale and then agree the deal. 2) Rick Parry ex Liverpool CEO and avowed fan becomes new EFL head in September 3) Weeks later EFL dump on SWFC.
Coincidence?

NewBack To Top

mkowl

3007906470164040_1.jpg

First used 10/08/09
21973 posts

Sheffield Wednesday
#247 05/12/2019 at 11:18

I think it is coincidence

Equally if that is found to be the case then it would show he was not a "fit and proper" person to run the EFL and he would presumably do the honourable thing and admit he was wrong *










* Correction he has connections to Liverpool that will never happen of course






Happy clapping for 4 years more than Emre 

NewBack To Top

HirstysHiTecBoots

First used 25/04/10
545 posts

#248 05/12/2019 at 11:25

I’m with you CDLF, Parry is a scouse c*nt who won’t do SWFC any favours, irrespective of culpability he’ll be out to punish us one way or another as some sort of irrational retribution. It’s how that mob think. 

Post edited on 05/12/2019 at 11:29 by HirstysHiTecBoots

NewBack To Top

tylluan

First used 09/08/09
3426 posts

Sheffield Wednesday
#249 05/12/2019 at 12:43

Just read the article on this that Reesh has posted in The Athletic thread.

The Athletic has been told that the club warned the former EFL chief executive Shaun Harvey about their profit and sustainability problems and told the league that they intended to fix them by selling the stadium. Several weeks of talks about Hillsborough’s valuation followed but the figure of £60 million was eventually approved by the league.

“Profits on the disposal of tangible fixed assets” had been specifically banned under the EFL’s version of “financial fair play” but, in order to bring its rulebook in line with the Premier League’s, those regulations were replaced, but without that clause, by the “P&S” rules in 2016.
Derby were the first club to spot the change in 2017 and they transformed a huge annual operating loss into a £40 million profit when owner Mel Morris bought Pride Park for £80 million.
Since then, Aston Villa’s owners have bought Villa Park for nearly £57 million and Reading’s owners have purchased the Madejski Stadium for just under £27 million, with both transactions wiping out what would have been P&S breaches

The Athletic understands that Derby’s stadium sale is being closely examined by the EFL and that developments in that case are likely this week or next.


 

NewBack To Top

P_O_T_R

First used 06/08/15
2972 posts

#250 05/12/2019 at 15:35

"following the review of a large number of documents provided by the club — some of those seen for the first time — evidence came to light to justify multiple charges of misconduct.” 



It's the part where it says some of these seen for the first time is the worry bit for me 

NewBack To Top

MPB

bernard-righton.jpg

First used 21/07/15
5907 posts

#251 05/12/2019 at 16:27

Or just never read by the fuckwits at the EFL?  

FUCK THE EFL!!!! 

NewBack To Top

bricat

n.jpg

First used 09/12/09
9738 posts

Sheffield Wednesday
#252 05/12/2019 at 16:28

It could be they have had them and not bothered to read them as they were too busy shafting Bury and Bolton. 

Fuck 'em. This city will always be ours. 

NewBack To Top

Baresi

First used 07/08/09
10598 posts

Sheffield Wednesday
#253 05/12/2019 at 16:46

From today's Star:
An EFL spokesman said: "As a result of the disciplinary proceedings announced last month, it would clearly be inappropriate to provide specific comment on matters linked to our comprehensive investigation other than to reiterate that, following the review of a large number of documents provided by the club - some of those seen for the first time – evidence came to light to justify multiple charges of misconduct."

The question is why were some 'incriminating' documents only seen by the EFL for the first time, and when were they submitted by the club? Were they originally overlooked/ disregarded/ approved by the EFL before they carried out their investigation/review? Or were they provided separately by the club later?

Both sides obviously backing themselves to the hilt...whoever loses, it'll be a crushing defeat. 

I ask you will Galway bate Mayo? Not if they have Willie Joe...they haven't a hope of beating Mayo! 

NewBack To Top

Baresi

First used 07/08/09
10598 posts

Sheffield Wednesday
#254 05/12/2019 at 16:48

Or just never read by the fuckwits at the EFL?
MPB, 05/12/2019 at 16:27


If they didn't MPB, and misled or misdirected Chansiri because of it, surely that adds huge weight to the club's argument? 

I ask you will Galway bate Mayo? Not if they have Willie Joe...they haven't a hope of beating Mayo! 

NewBack To Top

Andyben

First used 07/08/09
10003 posts

Sheffield Wednesday
#255 05/12/2019 at 17:18

Disclosure will be interesting. 

514 posts. < 17 > Show 15 30 50 60

Do you want your opinion heard? Get involved with Owlsonline by emailing us at admin@owlsonline.com