crucible 0 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 The fact we are on NOMAD number three in a little over 9 months is nothing whatsoever to do with Charlotte Fakes and everything to do with Green & Co filling their pockets by very dubious and possibly unlawful means. It has everything to do with Charlotte Fakes and nothing to do with a good set of figures signed off as clean by reputable auditors, I will enjoy the day and the clean bill of health, you make your own enjoyment. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 It has everything to do with Charlotte Fakes and nothing to do with a good set of figures signed off as clean by reputable auditors, I will enjoy the day and the clean bill of health, you make your own enjoyment. Jesus wept. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crucible 0 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 Jesus wept. He surely did when CF became the new epitome of truth. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 He surely did when CF became the new epitome of truth. Did CF issue the RNS notices to the Stock Exchange this morning? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 No change of broker rather a change of NOMAD. Third time lucky for Chuckles finally found a NOMAD willing to let him dump his shares. There's no doubt a lot more to this than just Green's lock-in though!! The very same day it was announced that we had changed from Cenkos to Strand Hanson was the day Malcolm Murray & Phil Cartmell were removed from the board and James Easdale was appointed. The night before that was officially announced IIRC you said that Cenkos had withdrawn (or would be withdrawing) their services because they didn't approve of the board changes. So in the case of losing Cenkos there could easily be multiple reasons and it's worth remembering this as other news comes out about what was going on. For example, the stuff you're talking about regarding rebates/kickbacks to investors. Now today we have Green officially out of his lock-in at the same time as the appointment of another new NOMAD, but is Green's lock-in really the reason for another change of advisor or is that just a red herring? Oh and it just so happens that the new NOMAD is a company who Malcolm Murray was voicing serious concerns about due to previous connections with Green and his cronies before Green & co got rid of him? Brilliant, just brilliant! Oh and btw! Did you hear that the accounts are much better than everyone expected and the company is actually healthy? Aye, seriously! No joke! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bossy 0 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 It has everything to do with Charlotte Fakes and nothing to do with a good set of figures signed off as clean by reputable auditors, I will enjoy the day and the clean bill of health, you make your own enjoyment. It isn't a clean bill of health. It just means that the financial statements give a true and fair view of the state of the club's affairs at 30 June 2013, that they have been properly prepared in accordance with IFRS and with the requirements of the Companies Act 2006. In other words, the accounting has been done right. The auditors do not look at the business model of the club, they do not look at long term revenue considerations, they do not opine on whether our costs are appropriate, etc. etc.. Companies can and do go bust even after the auditors have signed off on the accounts and through no fault of the audit. An audit, for the most part, is a backward looking exercise. Other than 'going concern', what happens in the future is not their problem. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acemcl 0 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 For me the whole accounts have been just as I expected .... clear as mud !! You have those reporting about the huge director salaries & bonuses, the money that's seems to have used to pay back those who funded the initial takeover etc etc. Then there are those who state that if you look that the figures, taking account of one off costs, increases in revenue over the coming season, the possibility of further cost cutting that the figures aren't that bad. Both of these viewpoints come from people who are knowledgeable in the way of accounts & how they are prepared. Taking all that into account, how are we, the 95% who don't know anything about accountancy, supposed to know what is right or wrong? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bossy 0 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 For me the whole accounts have been just as I expected .... clear as mud !! You have those reporting about the huge director salaries & bonuses, the money that's seems to have used to pay back those who funded the initial takeover etc etc. Then there are those who state that if you look that the figures, taking account of one off costs, increases in revenue over the coming season, the possibility of further cost cutting that the figures aren't that bad. Both of these viewpoints come from people who are knowledgeable in the way of accounts & how they are prepared. Taking all that into account, how are we, the 95% who don't know anything about accountancy, supposed to know what is right or wrong? The accounts are what they are. As I have said multiple times, the big issue coming out of the accounts is the £16 million gap between revenue and costs. Closing that gap in just one year will be a very tall order. And if they do not manage to do that then new funding will be required. This isn't an accounting issue, it is a business one. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crucible 0 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 It isn't a clean bill of health. It just means that the financial statements give a true and fair view of the state of the club's affairs at 30 June 2013, that they have been properly prepared in accordance with IFRS and with the requirements of the Companies Act 2006. In other words, the accounting has been done right. The auditors do not look at the business model of the club, they do not look at long term revenue considerations, they do not opine on whether our costs are appropriate, etc. etc.. Companies can and do go bust even after the auditors have signed off on the accounts and through no fault of the audit. An audit, for the most part, is a backward looking exercise. Other than 'going concern', what happens in the future is not their problem. I don't recall seeing your name signing off the accounts but I do recall seeing Deloitte's, good enough for me if not for you. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bossy 0 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 I don't recall seeing your name signing off the accounts but I do recall seeing Deloitte's, good enough for me if not for you. Do you have any understanding as to what an audit actually is? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.