Adver News: Shah gets Town's house in order

[ron dodgers]

Shah is wrong, during the Diamandis days the club was audited every year (last time was the 2006 accounts).

audited by Priciopolis Wateros Cooperlopolis no doubt?

[Honkytonk]

BUT WHY ARE THE PIES SO EXPENSIVE

[leefer]

Because the filling is so nice

[Benzel]

They are a little expensive but they're definitely good pies.

[pauld]

What did we expect,  the Advertiser decided to interview the finance director,  would people have preferred an in depth introduction and analysis of the double entry system?

Yes the accounts were audited in the past by the previous boards chosen auditors who did a fine job no doubt.  However the incomers are quite within their rights to get it done again,  and the fact that historic debts appear to have been overlooked previously suggests may be a good idea. One thing that does seem clear with this new lot is that they don't spend cash for the sake of it so if they are paying for this to be done it suggests they have their reasons.

Considering in the last 6 months of operation the old board were engaging in shit or bust business spending the owners money at a rate he wasn't aware of,  pandering to a manager who had no apparent idea of financial management and throwing contracts about like confetti it would appear sensible to establish once and for all what liabilities remain/exist.

Yep, all fair enough. I wasn't suggesting there was anything wrong with them doing an audit, which is mainly what you cover above - that seems a very sensible idea for all the reasons you outline. But it just worries me when we're being sold a line for no obvious reason

[leefer]

What did we expect,  the Advertiser decided to interview the finance director,  would people have preferred an in depth introduction and analysis of the double entry system?

Yes the accounts were audited in the past by the previous boards chosen auditors who did a fine job no doubt.  However the incomers are quite within their rights to get it done again,  and the fact that historic debts appear to have been overlooked previously suggests may be a good idea. One thing that does seem clear with this new lot is that they don't spend cash for the sake of it so if they are paying for this to be done it suggests they have their reasons.

Considering in the last 6 months of operation the old board were engaging in shit or bust business spending the owners money at a rate he wasn't aware of,  pandering to a manager who had no apparent idea of financial management and throwing contracts about like confetti it would appear sensible to establish once and for all what liabilities remain/exist.

Black knew what was being spent...he didn't get where he is today by letting folk spend his money without knowing what was going out.
Not sure that i go along with this misplaced theory that Andrew Black was stupid enough not to know what was going on.
Unless you can show me something that proves me wrong in which case fair enough.

But as you say it is indeed good and common sense thinking by the new regime.

[Benzel]

Pretty sure it was Black himself that said more money was being spent than he knew about.

[leefer]

 

Pretty sure it was Black himself that said more money was being spent than he knew about.

Pretty sure eh

[Simon Pieman]

What did we expect,  the Advertiser decided to interview the finance director,  would people have preferred an in depth introduction and analysis of the double entry system?

Yes the accounts were audited in the past by the previous boards chosen auditors who did a fine job no doubt.  However the incomers are quite within their rights to get it done again,  and the fact that historic debts appear to have been overlooked previously suggests may be a good idea. One thing that does seem clear with this new lot is that they don't spend cash for the sake of it so if they are paying for this to be done it suggests they have their reasons.

Considering in the last 6 months of operation the old board were engaging in shit or bust business spending the owners money at a rate he wasn't aware of,  pandering to a manager who had no apparent idea of financial management and throwing contracts about like confetti it would appear sensible to establish once and for all what liabilities remain/exist.

There's a distinction to be made though. End of year accounts tell you what has happened, not what's happening. It's great to know what has happened 6-9 months after year end but it doesn't indicate anything about the current affairs or necessarily how the company is being run. The auditors won't delve into the current financials to anywhere near the same extent as part of the year-end audit. An audit of prior events doesn't indicate sound running of operations.

And the previous auditors did not pander to the management/owners, which is why James Wills refused to sign off the accounts for a long time because he didn't agree with the auditors statement which suggested that the (then) holding co was worthless.

I'm sure Hacker Young will do a fine job, I'm sure their audit department is more competent than the corporate insolvency part of the firm.

I'm not moaning, transparency is good, an audit will hopefully be worthwhile, making produced accounts available to the fans is important and having a confidence in the financial affairs of the club equally so. I think most important is the communication of facts at the point in time it happens which is something that has been massively improved in the last couple of months or so.

However the proof of the pudding is in the eating and talk is cheap.

[sonicyouth]

Pretty sure it was Black himself that said more money was being spent than he knew about.

Pretty sure eh

I presume you mean this quote?

"I had had a sense of humour failure when the club breached the wage cap and went into embargo. I had repeatedly asked at the board for all player transactions to be communicated and I had had virtual radio silence."
http://www.thisisswindontownfc.co.uk/news/10245156.Black_reveals_all_on_Twitter/

[Benzel]

Pretty sure eh

By pretty sure, I mean, I am absolutely positive because I read it myself.

[fatbasher]

There's a distinction to be made though. End of year accounts tell you what has happened, not what's happening. It's great to know what has happened 6-9 months after year end but it doesn't indicate anything about the current affairs or necessarily how the company is being run. The auditors won't delve into the current financials to anywhere near the same extent as part of the year-end audit. An audit of prior events doesn't indicate sound running of operations.

And the previous auditors did not pander to the management/owners, which is why James Wills refused to sign off the accounts for a long time because he didn't agree with the auditors statement which suggested that the (then) holding co was worthless.

I'm sure Hacker Young will do a fine job, I'm sure their audit department is more competent than the corporate insolvency part of the firm.

I'm not moaning, transparency is good, an audit will hopefully be worthwhile, making produced accounts available to the fans is important and having a confidence in the financial affairs of the club equally so. I think most important is the communication of facts at the point in time it happens which is something that has been massively improved in the last couple of months or so.

However the proof of the pudding is in the eating and talk is cheap.

That said when the report is printed off and bound and the current board have gone over it with a variety of brightly coloured highlighter pens, they're only going to tell us what they think we need to know. It's a business after all and a privately owned one at that. So who knows what they will find and who knows what they will disclose.