2013 Accounts

[suttonred]

The accounts end not long after the board took over, so they wont have had much effect on them. Next years accounts will be a better indicator.

[4D]

You have to remember that the balance sheet extract is showing the clubs assets, liabilities and capital at a given point of time I.e. The year end. The p&l represents activity over the financial year. The cash holding is irrelevant, the biggest figures to note are the large drop in creditors and the reduction in the accumulated loss, as well as the share capital increase. Overall, it's a vast improvement compared to the previous year.

[Simon Pieman]

I won't be able to access the abbreviated accounts until tomorrow but it's unlikely they will tell us much.

Worth pointing out that the 'Emphasis of Matter' statement by the auditors refers to the Going Concern Note (note 1) of the accounts. I'd guess that this probably says something along the lines of the company being reliant on the continued support of the shareholders/directors to ensure the company can continue to trade whilst the business is in transition and cost control measures are implemented etc. It may reference the loss of an investor and the directors seeking new investment (which iirc would fit in with the timeline of events).

Had the previous sets of accounts been audited (from the Fitton/Black era) there would be an emphasis of matter statement. So we have accounts which are unqualified by the accountants but they have modified their opinion with an emphasis of matter statement. In more simple terms, the auditors are happy that the accounts present a true and fair view and adhere to the requirements, but they wish to draw attention to the fact that technically the company cannot fund itself. Hardly groundbreaking stuff.

There are certain things which still don't stack up in my mind (not to do with the accounts) which have certainly resurfaced this week.

[sonicyouth]

What doesn't stack up for you Si?

[STFCFORLIFE]

So it seems that Power is the owner after all? that's my opinion on how it looks, was that Fredi person right all along?

With Jed not knowing about this new guy and the fact he's part of the failed company cre8, it seems a bit fishy right?

[4D]

A p&l extract would be more interesting to me. I would like to see things minus all the shareholder changes etc

[Simon Pieman]

What doesn't stack up for you Si?

Sangita Shah is the first thing. Board member? Not according to anything official. Why the need for an audit? Forensic accounting was taking place around the time Lee Power surfaced.

Murrall resigns at the time the audit is signed off.

All could to point to a recently completed deal, the audit was probably a necessary part of the deal. I doubt the full accounts will ever be circulated as these would have that as a post-balance sheet event.

[Iffy's Onion Bhaji]

I wondered what the point of Sangitha Shah was tbh. Seemed a waste of time having her. Could have been just to make up numbers whilst the club was being sold off to Power.

[Reg Smeeton]

Sangita Shah is the first thing. Board member? Not according to anything official. Why the need for an audit? Forensic accounting was taking place around the time Lee Power surfaced.

Murrall resigns at the time the audit is signed off.

All could to point to a recently completed deal, the audit was probably a necessary part of the deal. I doubt the full accounts will ever be circulated as these would have that as a post-balance sheet event.

This is the stuff....time to batten down the hatches, don the the tin hat and break out the sandbags?

[Sir Pissalot]

[manc_red]

Sangita Shah is the first thing. Board member? Not according to anything official.

Now officially appointed as of yesterday.

[Power to people]

Now officially appointed as of yesterday.

Maybe they forgot to appoint her previously

[stfc2012]

What is interesting... That the new board want this 'audit'. Very keen to over explain and go on about this audit. Also making sure that there is a commentary so us farmer folk can understand it. I'd say, again, an attempt to over explain and possibly justify certain decision making.  If I am not mistaken the old board / owners gave STFC a clean slate pretty much so why is this required? You can bandy about sentences like 'we haven't had an audit since 1784 so we want to see exactly what is going on' all you like. It's clear what is going and what has been going on, and it must have been clear with due diligence before agreeing to buy the club. By all means conduct an audit for yourselves. If something is relevant to us fans then let us know. But this transparency is almost going too far. I'm looking forward to seeing Steve Anderson's creative approach to accounting brings to the party. As Jed has stated 'not a lot of clubs do an audit'. Then why should we? I find is STAGGERING that someone with a past like Lee Power would want an audit. And why not just publish the full audit and let us ask questions instead of telling us what to think? And will this audit have information on the growing number of people owed money by STFC? Will they provide a commentary on that? I am not an accountant, but there are quite a few savvy STFC fans that will have their say on this.

[Samdy Gray]

What is interesting... That the new board want this 'audit'. Very keen to over explain and go on about this audit. Also making sure that there is a commentary so us farmer folk can understand it. I'd say, again, an attempt to over explain and possibly justify certain decision making.  If I am not mistaken the old board / owners gave STFC a clean slate pretty much so why is this required?

Because they want a set of audited accounts, most likely.

It's clear what is going and what has been going on, and it must have been clear with due diligence before agreeing to buy the club.

Is it? Would it? Jed admitted the timescales to purchase the club were extremely restrictive which didn't allow thorough due dilligence.

But this transparency is almost going too far.

In what way? Surely transparency must be welcomed. I really can't understand why there should be any concern about accounts being audited. You can't hide anything in an audit - quite the opposite actually.

As Jed has stated 'not a lot of clubs do an audit'. Then why should we?

Because it's the only true way that you know the accounts given are true and independently verified. Other clubs don't do it because they're not obliged to under law and because the cost is often prohibitive.

I find is STAGGERING that someone with a past like Lee Power would want an audit.

Why? Perhaps having a few prior businesses go up the swanny has made him a bit wary about future business transactions and he's being ultra cautious about what he's committing his money to.

And why not just publish the full audit and let us ask questions instead of telling us what to think?

Because it's the auditors job to highlight any inconsistencies and discrepancies. Are you qualified as an auditor?

And will this audit have information on the growing number of people owed money by STFC? Will they provide a commentary on that?

Probably not, but it would most likely highlight any creditors that haven't been accounted for in previous accounts.

I'm not trying to defend Lee Power at all. I have absolutely no clue as to what his agenda is and why he's involved with out football club. I understand people being suspicious because of our chequered history, but really, questioning the ethics of having an audit done just seems rather... odd.

[leefer]

Because they want a set of audited accounts, most likely.

Is it? Would it? Jed admitted the timescales to purchase the club were extremely restrictive which didn't allow thorough due dilligence.

In what way? Surely transparency must be welcomed. I really can't understand why there should be any concern about accounts being audited. You can't hide anything in an audit - quite the opposite actually.

Because it's the only true way that you know the accounts given are true and independently verified. Other clubs don't do it because they're not obliged to under law and because the cost is often prohibitive.

Why? Perhaps having a few prior businesses go up the swanny has made him a bit wary about future business transactions and he's being ultra cautious about what he's committing his money to.

Because it's the auditors job to highlight any inconsistencies and discrepancies. Are you qualified as an auditor?

Probably not, but it would most likely highlight any creditors that haven't been accounted for in previous accounts.

I'm not trying to defend Lee Power at all. I have absolutely no clue as to what his agenda is and why he's involved with out football club. I understand people being suspicious because of our chequered history, but really, questioning the ethics of having an audit done just seems rather... odd.

Your last line Sam is the important one.
You have no idea of his agenda...untill he explains it forums and the such will be filled with people who want to know whats going on.
A man pulling the strings of a football club dosn't have to be popular...but at least be transparant and inform the people who support the club a small idea of what is going on.