der Berliner 3,249 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 On a sidenote, it is a touch frighteneing that the yellow press gurus have a achieved gospel and prime info source status these last few years. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 From my very limited knowledge of such matters, I would assume that if the figures are correct then there is unlikely to be any further negative actions taken. However, it may prompt a general review of the accounts & the auditors performance in signing them off. Who is it that will have compiled Note 30 - auditors or Directors??? If it was the auditors, were they negligent in their duty & didn't scrutinise the contracts correctly, or was it the directors who didn't disclose this particular piece of information - if so why was it not disclosed??? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 And what else haven't they duscolsed 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 And what else haven't they duscolsed That could be for the authorities to decide....they may want to know if there are other bits of information missing, and therefore conduct an investigation. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 I would hope someone is investing and I'm not sure I trust the club to do it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 On a sidenote, it is a touch frighteneing that the yellow press gurus have a achieved gospel and prime info source status these last few years. The "yellow press" !! Tabloids are tabloids and they will always headline accordingly, sometimes with good reason and others to sensationalise.............but do you think the last few years have been generally exaggerated or have the media in general failed to grasp the fullextent of the ongoing nightmare in a timely manner ? It's all very well you and Mr.Hemdani criticising the media but perhaps in part this is the easy route to forgetting your own serious fundamental misjudgements along the way. I'd say what the support might be better off doing is trying to learn from their own mistakes rather than flagging up the supposed 'baddies' of eg. The Daily Record,...who many told us (including the club) were 'not to be listened to'. note 30: could some kind soul who isn't ignored by DB quote this post so as he has the option to read it, thank's ! For the benifit of Mr.Hemdani........... This note (30) is part of the post. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,340 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 From my very limited knowledge of such matters, I would assume that if the figures are correct then there is unlikely to be any further negative actions taken. However, it may prompt a general review of the accounts & the auditors performance in signing them off. Who is it that will have compiled Note 30 - auditors or Directors??? If it was the auditors, were they negligent in their duty & didn't scrutinise the contracts correctly, or was it the directors who didn't disclose this particular piece of information - if so why was it not disclosed??? the note could have been complied by either the auditors or the directors. Sometimes with relatively technical issues the auditors will prepare it but with input from the client. Ultimately it's the directors' responsibility to get it right and further highlights Stockbridge's incompetence. The other directors may not know the ins and outs of each figure in the accounts but this is a factual matter and they should have been aware of it and picked it up when they reviewed the accounts. It suggests that they did not read the accounts in detail. It is also highly embarrassing for the auditors that this note is wrong. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 the note could have been complied by either the auditors or the directors. Sometimes with relatively technical issues the auditors will prepare it but with input from the client. Ultimately it's the directors' responsibility to get it right and further highlights Stockbridge's incompetence. The other directors may not know the ins and outs of each figure in the accounts but this is a factual matter and they should have been aware of it and picked it up when they reviewed the accounts. It suggests that they did not read the accounts in detail. It is also highly embarrassing for the auditors that this note is wrong. I doubt it was "incompetence". Not because I took as gospel the gushing praise he received from present board members but because he has a history of 'innocent mistakes' that suggest less than forthright honest behaviour. eg. The wording of resloution 9 / fans group meeting. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhunter 0 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Yep Keith, you need some story cliffhangers. Try chasing the Yahoos and their land deals for a change. Incorrect accounts. Now that is something new (at least for this club ... well, a few minor hick-ups with some EBT deals aside). Is the rest flawed as well? Maybe so. Yet, who knows for sure? It's like saying an Airbus A 380 is flawed and may not fly because someone ordered the wrongly coloured carpet for the first class. It does show a certain lack of professionalism by those doing the accounts, then again, who knows what sort of contracts and deals had been implemented during Green's reign? we all do because they admitted it in the 1200 day review The Club has entered into a number of contracts that are onerous and not delivering value on price or service. In several instances it appears that the Club did not use lawyers to protect its interests. Poor planning and forecasting key assumptions that upon review were seriously flawed absence of any effective cash and business planning processes should have known that it could not afford they are proven liars. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 How can you be so sure that there are no more omissions or other accounting errors in there? Time and again, all the way from Whyte, they have shown that they are economical with the truth. There will be those who think that it was a deliberate ploy to hoodwink the fans and the shareholders in the lead up to what could have been an extremely difficult AGM for them. An omission is one thing, but when it is connected to the little charade that was played out by Somers and Stockbridge in front of a gathered audience, even a supporter of the regime like yourself must be starting to ask questions. I cannot be sure as you rightly point out but equally I didn't suggest that. All I am saying is that the error is in a note to the accounts not the accounts themselves; I don't think that invalidates the accounts. I agree that "There will be those who think that it was a deliberate ploy to hoodwink the fans and the shareholders in the lead up to what could have been an extremely difficult AGM " and on the face of it, it is a significant error which might lead a reasonable person to that conclusion but without evidence it is all guesswork. Much the same I would suggest as a great many of the things that were levelled against Stockbridge; without evidence of instructions that he was given, we cannot know for certain what he might have failed to carry out or carried out ineffectively or wrongly. And for the umpteenth time, the fact that someone is not against the incumbent Board; doesn't mean that one supports them; they have yet to earn my trust. 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.