May 2009 accounts

In another thread today , people have mentioned the 2009 accounts which are due to be filed at Companies House for public inspection at the end of this month , and whether they might be available sooner - say at the General Meeting of shareholders on 24 Feb.

I would suggest that an audit problem caused by the club`s financial problems is likely to be the reason why the accounts have not been published so far and are likely to be delayed for some time yet.

In the 2008 accounts the auditors revealed that they had some material doubts about whether the club`s trading forecasts could be achieved to enable it to carry on trading in the medium term. Those doubts are likely to have increased since then such that the auditors may now feel that they have to state in their report that they are not convinced that the accounts should be prepared on what is known as a "going concern" basis. That is , they feel there is not enough evidence to show that the club can continue to trade for at least another 12 months from the date they sign off their report due too its financial position (2 winding-up petitions will not have helped!).

If the auditors feel that the going concern basis is not appropriate then they will insist that the assets are restated on a "breakup" or "fire sale" valuation basis instead or they will not sign off their report. This would make the club look far less attractive to any potential investor , and also cause concerns for creditors etc. who might panic to get their money back.

In another thread today , people have mentioned the 2009 accounts which are due to be filed at Companies House for public inspection at the end of this month , and whether they might be available sooner - say at the General Meeting of shareholders on 24 Feb.

I would suggest that an audit problem caused by the club`s financial problems is likely to be the reason why the accounts have not been published so far and are likely to be delayed for some time yet.

In the 2008 accounts the auditors revealed that they had some material doubts about whether the club`s trading forecasts could be achieved to enable it to carry on trading in the medium term. Those doubts are likely to have increased since then such that the auditors may now feel that they have to state in their report that they are not convinced that the accounts should be prepared on what is known as a "going concern" basis. That is , they feel there is not enough evidence to show that the club can continue to trade for at least another 12 months from the date they sign off their report due too its financial position (2 winding-up petitions will not have helped!).

If the auditors feel that the going concern basis is not appropriate then they will insist that the assets are restated on a "breakup" or "fire sale" valuation basis instead or they will not sign off their report. This would make the club look far less attractive to any potential investor , and also cause concerns for creditors etc. who might panic to get their money back.

It will be difficult to discuss the current financial situation at the EGM without audited accounts available.

And it also helps that the meeting has been called 4 days before they are due to be published, convenient that.

In another thread today , people have mentioned the 2009 accounts which are due to be filed at Companies House for public inspection at the end of this month , and whether they might be available sooner - say at the General Meeting of shareholders on 24 Feb.

I would suggest that an audit problem caused by the club`s financial problems is likely to be the reason why the accounts have not been published so far and are likely to be delayed for some time yet.

In the 2008 accounts the auditors revealed that they had some material doubts about whether the club`s trading forecasts could be achieved to enable it to carry on trading in the medium term. Those doubts are likely to have increased since then such that the auditors may now feel that they have to state in their report that they are not convinced that the accounts should be prepared on what is known as a "going concern" basis. That is , they feel there is not enough evidence to show that the club can continue to trade for at least another 12 months from the date they sign off their report due too its financial position (2 winding-up petitions will not have helped!).

If the auditors feel that the going concern basis is not appropriate then they will insist that the assets are restated on a "breakup" or "fire sale" valuation basis instead or they will not sign off their report. This would make the club look far less attractive to any potential investor , and also cause concerns for creditors etc. who might panic to get their money back.

It will be difficult to discuss the current financial situation at the EGM without audited accounts available.

No it won`t.

The audited accounts will only show the position as at 31 May 2009 and trading for the year leading up to that date - that information will be out of date by between 9 months and 21 months by the time of the meeting.They can be used as a guideline for what has happened for part of the period since 31 May 2008 but not much else.

What is more relevant is what the current position is (as shown by unaudited management accounts) and by forecasts for future trading. Both of these pieces of financial information are available to the directors and can be used to discuss finances with the shareholders.

Even more important is being told what caused the current cashflow crisis which led to HMRC nearly winding the club up twice (and if it was a big overspend on the stadium , how and who authorised it) , what HMRC were told would be done to deal with it (and was that truthful), from what funds the balance of £1.7m of tax due by 10 March will be met (if a property sale , what has happened to the £3m season ticket money). Also , if the HMRC debt is paid , what is going to be used to pay wages and other running costs until the end of the season and beyond (other than the hope of new investment which should not have been in any budget for the year anyway).

In another thread today , people have mentioned the 2009 accounts which are due to be filed at Companies House for public inspection at the end of this month , and whether they might be available sooner - say at the General Meeting of shareholders on 24 Feb.

I would suggest that an audit problem caused by the club`s financial problems is likely to be the reason why the accounts have not been published so far and are likely to be delayed for some time yet.

In the 2008 accounts the auditors revealed that they had some material doubts about whether the club`s trading forecasts could be achieved to enable it to carry on trading in the medium term. Those doubts are likely to have increased since then such that the auditors may now feel that they have to state in their report that they are not convinced that the accounts should be prepared on what is known as a "going concern" basis. That is , they feel there is not enough evidence to show that the club can continue to trade for at least another 12 months from the date they sign off their report due too its financial position (2 winding-up petitions will not have helped!).

If the auditors feel that the going concern basis is not appropriate then they will insist that the assets are restated on a "breakup" or "fire sale" valuation basis instead or they will not sign off their report. This would make the club look far less attractive to any potential investor , and also cause concerns for creditors etc. who might panic to get their money back.

It will be difficult to discuss the current financial situation at the EGM without audited accounts available.

No it won`t.

The audited accounts will only show the position as at 31 May 2009 and trading for the year leading up to that date - that information will be out of date by between 9 months and 21 months by the time of the meeting.They can be used as a guideline for what has happened for part of the period since 31 May 2008 but not much else.

What is more relevant is what the current position is (as shown by unaudited management accounts) and by forecasts for future trading. Both of these pieces of financial information are available to the directors and can be used to discuss finances with the shareholders.

Even more important is being told what caused the current cashflow crisis which led to HMRC nearly winding the club up twice (and if it was a big overspend on the stadium , how and who authorised it) , what HMRC were told would be done to deal with it (and was that truthful), from what funds the balance of £1.7m of tax due by 10 March will be met (if a property sale , what has happened to the £3m season ticket money). Also , if the HMRC debt is paid , what is going to be used to pay wages and other running costs until the end of the season and beyond (other than the hope of new investment which should not have been in any budget for the year anyway).

Yes but nothing to do with the past or current finances is on the agenda for the general meeting. How are we supposed to get any truth and clarity if the clubs directors do not want to discuss such matters?

In another thread today , people have mentioned the 2009 accounts which are due to be filed at Companies House for public inspection at the end of this month , and whether they might be available sooner - say at the General Meeting of shareholders on 24 Feb.

I would suggest that an audit problem caused by the club`s financial problems is likely to be the reason why the accounts have not been published so far and are likely to be delayed for some time yet.

In the 2008 accounts the auditors revealed that they had some material doubts about whether the club`s trading forecasts could be achieved to enable it to carry on trading in the medium term. Those doubts are likely to have increased since then such that the auditors may now feel that they have to state in their report that they are not convinced that the accounts should be prepared on what is known as a "going concern" basis. That is , they feel there is not enough evidence to show that the club can continue to trade for at least another 12 months from the date they sign off their report due too its financial position (2 winding-up petitions will not have helped!).

If the auditors feel that the going concern basis is not appropriate then they will insist that the assets are restated on a "breakup" or "fire sale" valuation basis instead or they will not sign off their report. This would make the club look far less attractive to any potential investor , and also cause concerns for creditors etc. who might panic to get their money back.

It will be difficult to discuss the current financial situation at the EGM without audited accounts available.

No it won`t.

The audited accounts will only show the position as at 31 May 2009 and trading for the year leading up to that date - that information will be out of date by between 9 months and 21 months by the time of the meeting.They can be used as a guideline for what has happened for part of the period since 31 May 2008 but not much else.

What is more relevant is what the current position is (as shown by unaudited management accounts) and by forecasts for future trading. Both of these pieces of financial information are available to the directors and can be used to discuss finances with the shareholders.

Even more important is being told what caused the current cashflow crisis which led to HMRC nearly winding the club up twice (and if it was a big overspend on the stadium , how and who authorised it) , what HMRC were told would be done to deal with it (and was that truthful), from what funds the balance of £1.7m of tax due by 10 March will be met (if a property sale , what has happened to the £3m season ticket money). Also , if the HMRC debt is paid , what is going to be used to pay wages and other running costs until the end of the season and beyond (other than the hope of new investment which should not have been in any budget for the year anyway).

TBH I am amazed that you think you will get that level of co-operation from Ridsdale.

I am going to blunt here we have been through this before at the Muni Club. Since 62’ you directly asked Ridsdale about the level of debt and estimated it at £39m, which in the opinion of most of us was about right.

However, Mr Ridsdale to your face told you were ‘wrong’ and that the debt was "around £23m" if you took in factors like Langston would be paid off in full this year.

He then skirted around other debts to justify his estimate. Frankly does anyone believe our debt is £23m? I don't but because there was no paperwork, no clarity and no transparency Ridsdale was able to piss all over our parade (no offence intended)

Without proper audited accounts it is impossible to gauge whether we are being told the truth or lied to again and that IMO is a justifiable concern.

The main difference between the Muni and a proper EGM is the fact that the meeting has to be minuted and the company cannot lie to shareholders delibrerately...it is a different ball game altogether.

The main difference between the Muni and a proper EGM is the fact that the meeting has to be minuted and the company cannot lie to shareholders delibrerately...it is a different ball game altogether.

Indeed....If, and only if, the appropriate questions can be answered. It seems increasingly likely that the Trust is going to have to try and force a second EGM.

The main difference between the Muni and a proper EGM is the fact that the meeting has to be minuted and the company cannot lie to shareholders delibrerately...it is a different ball game altogether.

I really hope you are right but that answer really doesn't fill me with much hope.

The Muni Club was well documented to, many of us took notes and the press in the form of Steve Tucker were there. Without clarity Ridsdale can fob you off because it's impossible to challenge him if the information isn't there in black & white.

Surly you learn't that much from the Muni Club?

Ofcourse he can fob people off but Major shareholders are also in the meeting and they have huge business interests in south Wales...they are responsible to the whole of the shareholders will they sit there and be associated with an EGM that could be proven to be filled with lies? Its not the Peter Ridsdale show...its the major shareholders aswell.

I am not filled with any sense of anticipation regards this one EGM meeting and believe that the fans will have to keep pressing even after the 24th Feb....What I honestly do believe is that if Mr Ridsdale was to leave the club then a lot of the fans anger and fears would go with him...The remaining major shareholders should then be able to get all the fans back on board...PROVIDING THEY SHOW THE FANS A BUSINESS PLAN THAT MEANS OUR CLUB CAN COPE IN THE SHORT, MEDIUM AND LONG TERM.

Ofcourse he can fob people off but Major shareholders are also in the meeting and they have huge business interests in south Wales...they are responsible to the whole of the shareholders will they sit there and be associated with an EGM that could be proven to be filled with lies? Its not the Peter Ridsdale show...its the major shareholders aswell.

I am not filled with any sense of anticipation regards this one EGM meeting and believe that the fans will have to keep pressing even after the 24th Feb....What I honestly do believe is that if Mr Ridsdale was to leave the club then a lot of the fans anger and fears would go with him...The remaining major shareholders should then be able to get all the fans back on board...PROVIDING THEY SHOW THE FANS A BUSINESS PLAN THAT MEANS OUR CLUB CAN COPE IN THE SHORT, MEDIUM AND LONG TERM.

Was a question regarding this business plan not asked to be put on the agenda of the meeting when the trust originally requested an EGM?

A limited company has 9 months following their year end (CCFC y/e May 2009) to file their accounts with Companies House for the public domain.

Once the accounts are filed you can tell the auditors opinion on those accounts by whether they have been audited on a "going concern" basis e.g company will trade for the foreseeable future (12 months +) or on a "break-up" basis e.g the auditors can not 100% guarantee that the company will trade for the forseeable future.

As previously stated the issue with published accounts are that they are out of date and it is only usually the companies management accounts which provide an accurate picture to the board etc (these are not for public domain).

A limited company has 9 months following their year end (CCFC y/e May 2009) to file their accounts with Companies House for the public domain.

Once the accounts are filed you can tell the auditors opinion on those accounts by whether they have been audited on a "going concern" basis e.g company will trade for the foreseeable future (12 months +) or on a "break-up" basis e.g the auditors can not 100% guarantee that the company will trade for the forseeable future.

As previously stated the issue with published accounts are that they are out of date and it is only usually the companies management accounts which provide an accurate picture to the board etc (these are not for public domain).

Are shareholders entitled to see managment accounts?

A limited company has 9 months following their year end (CCFC y/e May 2009) to file their accounts with Companies House for the public domain.

Once the accounts are filed you can tell the auditors opinion on those accounts by whether they have been audited on a "going concern" basis e.g company will trade for the foreseeable future (12 months +) or on a "break-up" basis e.g the auditors can not 100% guarantee that the company will trade for the forseeable future.

As previously stated the issue with published accounts are that they are out of date and it is only usually the companies management accounts which provide an accurate picture to the board etc (these are not for public domain).

Yes all very well but at the moment we only have accounts up until May 2008 so even accounts that are 9 months old (i.e. May 2009) would be better than nothing and that's the point.

Ofcourse he can fob people off but Major shareholders are also in the meeting and they have huge business interests in south Wales...they are responsible to the whole of the shareholders will they sit there and be associated with an EGM that could be proven to be filled with lies? Its not the Peter Ridsdale show...its the major shareholders aswell.

I am not filled with any sense of anticipation regards this one EGM meeting and believe that the fans will have to keep pressing even after the 24th Feb....What I honestly do believe is that if Mr Ridsdale was to leave the club then a lot of the fans anger and fears would go with him...The remaining major shareholders should then be able to get all the fans back on board...PROVIDING THEY SHOW THE FANS A BUSINESS PLAN THAT MEANS OUR CLUB CAN COPE IN THE SHORT, MEDIUM AND LONG TERM.

Well I'm glad you have a realistic expectation of the EGM and I fully agree that you should be planning post 24 February.

There will almost certainly be a need to call a second EGM to specifically grill the board on the finances and insist that full up to date audited accounts are produced.

If that's the plan then we are singing from the same hymn sheet.