New accounts signed off

[Fred Elliot]

They weren't signed off by the accountants as they were qualified.

However they were approved at a vote at the last AGM

[glos_robin]

Ah right fair enough, SSW holds most of the shares though so he would always approve them surely based on advice from Diamond Mike.

[RobertT]

as Fred states, the shareholders vote to approve the accounts.  SSW therefore just gives the nod to say he's happy with them being shit.

£1.22m is still a huge loss to make at our level.  It's this sort of loss that has lead to the downfall of a few clubs in recent years and is unsustainable.  Check out Rotherham for example.

Most clubs of our size will have a seaosn here and there where this happens, but every year is a very bad sign.  For every pound we earn we spend £1.33 ish.

Odd also that they only mention Operating losses, wonder if this means a worse performance on the profit/loss after all the accountants bits.  IIRC the previous years had an excpetional item that chalked off £800k making them look better, maybe the 2004/05 ones don't so show a worse end position.

[Fred Elliot]

Odd also that they only mention Operating losses, wonder if this means a worse performance on the profit/loss after all the accountants bits.  IIRC the previous years had an excpetional item that chalked off £800k making them look better, maybe the 2004/05 ones don't so show a worse end position.

 

You're right Rob

The balance sheet will not look too clever

[glos_robin]

Will fit right in with the people that put it together then  :-))(

[Summerof69]

Of course, these will be the accounts that are going to show Diamond Mike's 'financial engineering', to get the balance sheet down from -£10m to +£2m !!

[Samdy Gray]

Of course, these will be the accounts that are going to show Diamond Mike's 'financial engineering', to get the balance sheet down from -£10m to +£2m !!

That's only because of the 'loan notes' though. Potentially the debt is still there, there just has to be a trigger for it to become repayable.

[RobertT]

and the trigger is the thing they say they can't survive without doing, so they've all but secured the debt against a future asset - making it more likely to be repaid if and when they happens than remaining as unsecured debt.

[Matchworn Shirts]

Profit or loss before Tax - don't ask Sandy

[sonic youth]

excellent, I forgive them for everything now and my backing for the current board is 100%.

we want power out!

[Reg Smeeton]

This is the disclaimer from, the Auditor in 04

   Because of the possible effect of the limitation in evidence available to us , we are unable to to form an opinion as to whether the the financial statements give a fair view of the loss for the year ended May 04, or of the comparitives shown in these financial statements.

  In all other respects the financial statements have ben properly prepared.

  In respect alone of the limitation on our work relating to balances brought forward and comparitive amounts in these accounts
 
 .....we had not obtained all the information and explanations that we considered neccessary for our audit and

 .....we were unable to determine whether proper accounting records have been maintained.

[Simon Pieman]

Phil's got it right about the audit opinion.

Auditors generally qualify their opinion to cover their back (if not they would get wrongly sued left right and centre). If there was something majorly wrong they wouldn't even give a qualified opinion.

A qualified opinion is a negative form of expression...basically saying that the auditors agree with the figures and disclosures, but subject to limitations. By and large the accounts conform to UK GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles). In other words, there are limitations, but actually they're generally ok and are not materially misstated (where the users of the financial information could be influenced by a material [significantly wrong] misstatement), except for one or two items.

This differs from and adverse opinon, which is the opinion that states the accounts do not conform to UK GAAP as a whole. This means they are materially misstated and should not be relied on whatsoever.

[lebowski]

how does this £1.2million loss relate to our second period in administration? was that before, during or after the accounting period?

[RobertT]

these accounts relate to a normal trading period where all we were subject to was the CVA, i.e a £100k payment during this accounting period, as was the set before (so combined losses of over £2m in 2 years, plus whatever was lost during 2002/03 as well which I think was even more).

[Northern Red]

Accountants approve the accounts...
Auditor's signing off is called "to qualify" the accounts...
To complicate things its is possible to approve non-qualified accounts with an auditor's approval  :?

It's about known unknowns (see Donald Rumsfeld!)

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know."