New accounts signed off

[Panda Paws]

The Board of STFC are pleased to announce that the Annual Accounts for 2004/05 have now been completed and signed off by the Club’s Auditors Ross Brooke.

 

Operating losses for the year were reduced by 17% to £1.22m. The Annual Accounts for the period 2005/06 are nearing completion and will be with the Auditors within the next few weeks.

 

When these have been signed off the Board intend to hold the AGM before a home match during the month of September 2007 for the shareholders to approve both sets of Accounts.        

[Summerof69]

So that's the accounts for TWO years ago.

Nice for them to be so timely !!!

[glos_robin]

Losses if 1.22m ............slightly different to their 750k that they keep banding around, dread to imagine the 05/06 ones though

[Fred Elliot]

What do they want ........................ a fucking pat on the back or something

[glos_robin]

What do they want ........................ a fucking pat on the back or something

A Mars bar should suffice

[Panda Paws]

http://www.swindontownfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/News/NewsDetail/0,,10341~1022459,00.html

Oooh on the website now. Happy days for all those involved. Bet they'll enjoy the Mars bar.

[Panda Paws]

(Mind you, you've got to wonder if they'll have to give Willie one from a Celebrations pack - I fear a full-sized one will put him in hospital with all that sugar)

[pauld]

Given the shocking track record of innacurate and downright misleading statements as to the club's financial situation made at the last several years' AGMs, I'd expect this year's to require equally large pinches of salt as well. The sad thing is now that if even Sandy et al stood up and told shareholders the whole picture without reserve, few people would believe them because of that track record. They are simply too discredited by too many years of failure, incompetence and an aversion to owning up to the truth.

[Spud]

*BREAKING NEWS*

We've won the 1969 League Cup after beating Arsenal at Wembley!  

[Frigby Daser]

They may be signed off by the auditors, but I doubt they'll be approved - which means they're not worth the paper they're written on

[glos_robin]

They may be signed off by the auditors, but I doubt they'll be approved - which means they're not worth the paper they're written on

Very good point, the last set never did get approved did they?!

[Fred Elliot]

Yes the did

they were qualified too

I was fucking amazed

[glos_robin]

Oh right I thought they never got approved as couldn't be proven to be accurate...........well I never, I've got no idea how they managed to pull that off

[glos_robin]

Fred actually just read Rob Tuck's post on thisis, he seems to say they weren't properly signed off but just got a qualification instead.....I'm sure this is what I remember also as can't remember them ever announcing they had been formally signed off.

[Phil_S]

I might be wrong here but don't accountants "approve" accounts & then "qualify" that approval by saying that they were approved, based on the information provided being correct & that they haven't seen (audited) all of the paperwork.