Have the club produced last years accounts yet ?

Should have been out by March 31st, but no sign as yet.

Shocking.

No wonder Ridsdale was able to hide stuff.

Tim, As far as I am aware, No there not out yet.

Not published yet. I heard the delay is in getting an agreed realistic valuation of the stadium. Remember Ridsdale telling us we now had positive net assets? Well, yeah if you value the stadium at £30-£40 odd million but actually, what's it really worth as an asset in the balance sheet? That's what's holding things up, I believe.

Taxi to Rio for Mr Ridsdale

Not published yet. I heard the delay is in getting an agreed realistic valuation of the stadium. Remember Ridsdale telling us we now had positive net assets? Well, yeah if you value the stadium at £30-£40 odd million but actually, what's it really worth as an asset in the balance sheet? That's what's holding things up, I believe.

That was the excuse back in February Mike. 4 months have passed since then. What are they doing, measuring the skidmarks on the seats after the Leicester game ?

Good news is - we won't be able to do it next year.

Not that I would expect the Malaysians to f'ck about with it.

Not published yet. I heard the delay is in getting an agreed realistic valuation of the stadium. Remember Ridsdale telling us we now had positive net assets? Well, yeah if you value the stadium at £30-£40 odd million but actually, what's it really worth as an asset in the balance sheet? That's what's holding things up, I believe.

That was the excuse back in February Mike. 4 months have passed since then. What are they doing, measuring the skidmarks on the seats after the Leicester game ?

Good news is - we won't be able to do it next year.

Not that I would expect the Malaysians to f'ck about with it.

The prob is The Malaysians in My opinion have left the wrong people in charge of our Club,Just My Opinion.

Can't be that difficult surely.

Assets - stadium, some players.
Cash in hand - f**k all.
Debts - Millions.

Just sign that and away we go.

Easy.

Not published yet. I heard the delay is in getting an agreed realistic valuation of the stadium. Remember Ridsdale telling us we now had positive net assets? Well, yeah if you value the stadium at £30-£40 odd million but actually, what's it really worth as an asset in the balance sheet? That's what's holding things up, I believe.

That was the initial hold up Mike. Alan Flitcroft told me at the EGM (the first one called after pressure from the Trust to convene one at which the land deals were approved) that the club was struggling to find any professional valuer that would sign his name to the valuation figure that Peter Ridsdale wanted put into the accounts. Without that independent valuation , the auditors were unwilling to sign off the accounts without referring to the fact that they disagreed with the valuation.

Since then , I believe there have been further problems causing a delay. One of these must surely be the continuing discovery of more liabilities which the new regime is working on to decide how they are settled , which will impact on how they are shown in the accounts . Some of them existed back in May 2009(the last accounts date) and some are big enough to be disclosed as post balance sheet events even though incurred after May 2009 as their treatment impacts on the ability of the club to continue trading.

From reading posts on here from Annis and Carl re the Langstone papers they say they have read there is also a big problem as to how much of that liability should be shown in the May 2009 accounts.

Keith

Not published yet. I heard the delay is in getting an agreed realistic valuation of the stadium. Remember Ridsdale telling us we now had positive net assets? Well, yeah if you value the stadium at £30-£40 odd million but actually, what's it really worth as an asset in the balance sheet? That's what's holding things up, I believe.

That was the initial hold up Mike. Alan Flitcroft told me at the EGM (the first one called after pressure from the Trust to convene one at which the land deals were approved) that the club was struggling to find any professional valuer that would sign his name to the valuation figure that Peter Ridsdale wanted put into the accounts. Without that independent valuation , the auditors were unwilling to sign off the accounts without referring to the fact that they disagreed with the valuation.

Since then , I believe there have been further problems causing a delay. One of these must surely be the continuing discovery of more liabilities which the new regime is working on to decide how they are settled , which will impact on how they are shown in the accounts . Some of them existed back in May 2009(the last accounts date) and some are big enough to be disclosed as post balance sheet events even though incurred after May 2009 as their treatment impacts on the ability of the club to continue trading.

From reading posts on here from Annis and Carl re the Langstone papers they say they have read there is also a big problem as to how much of that liability should be shown in the May 2009 accounts.

Keith

What a feckin mess Keith.

I wonder also, did TG and VT know about these 'other debts' (I take it you mean other things than the Ranson debt).

I think when we look back we'll see that even more than what we already know Ridsdale was lying through his teeth every time he spoke to us.

Correct Keith, things are not what everyone thought.