Shocking from our Club latest

[essex canary 631]

The number of errors in the Cash Flow Statement as highlighted in yellow below.

[Herman 11,178]

I'm outraged. 

[dylanisabaddog 6,197]

What is the source of this information? 

[essex canary 631]

Just now, dylanisabaddog said:

What is the source of this information? 

The remainder of the Accounts. The Cash Flow Statement can simply be derived from the Income and Expenditure Account and Balance Sheet itself (assuming of course they are correct).

[hogesar 10,949]

Padel is a fast growing sport that I think could really take your mind of things (and you off this forum Essex). 

I think you need hobbies.

Beyond crying about a football club you hate.

Actually, I quite like Padel. Can you find something else instead?

[Google Bot 3,995]

If you pretend that's not in thousands, and just pounds, it's not so much difference really.  They just misplaced £5k that went into player contracts that's all.  It's not like it's £5m difference or anything. 😉

[Herman 11,178]

9 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Padel is a fast growing sport that I think could really take your mind of things (and you off this forum Essex). 

I think you need hobbies.

Beyond crying about a football club you hate.

Actually, I quite like Padel. Can you find something else instead?

Can hookers and drugs be classed as hobbies? 

[Trevor Hockey's Beard 613]

I've always thought that the point of accounts is to distract people (who like that sort of thing) away from what you are really doing - but I guess not everyone thinks like a Farmer - luckily.

At the last Business Breakfast I attended I was talking to two accountants, and when I said that I thought things started to go wrong when the Accountants took over, one of them walked off.

[dylanisabaddog 6,197]

27 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The remainder of the Accounts. The Cash Flow Statement can simply be derived from the Income and Expenditure Account and Balance Sheet itself (assuming of course they are correct).

I'm sorry but I don't understand that explanation. Has the club published changes to the accounts or are these just adjustments you have decided are required? 

[Trevor Hockey's Beard 613]

2 minutes ago, Herman said:

Can hookers and drugs be classed as hobbies? 

As Sheldon Cooper would say: "Fun Fact: the term Hooker (for a lady of the night) derives from the surname of Union Army General "Fighting Joe" Hooker." 

[hogesar 10,949]

5 minutes ago, Herman said:

Can hookers and drugs be classed as hobbies? 

If it keeps Essex off the forum I'm starting to think i'd allow Manslaughter to be classed as one...

[dylanisabaddog 6,197]

Just now, Trevor Hockey's Beard said:

As Sheldon Cooper would say: "Fun Fact: the term Hooker (for a lady of the night) derives from the surname of Union Army General "Fighting Joe" Hooker." 

Sheldon Cooper should be quoted more often😊

[essex canary 631]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I'm sorry but I don't understand that explanation. Has the club published changes to the accounts or are these just adjustments you have decided are required? 

The text changes I have highlighted in Yellow are where the Club's descriptions are simply wrong or incomplete.

I will forward another response re transfers one of which can be verified as correct, the other which is in error by £5 million.

[Branston Pickle 4,169]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

The remainder of the Accounts. The Cash Flow Statement can simply be derived from the Income and Expenditure Account and Balance Sheet itself (assuming of course they are correct).

That isn’t necessarily correct.

And you do realise the accounts are audited  - your issue is with the auditors rather than the club.

You have a pretty weird life if the majority of it is nit-picking everything the club says and does.

 

Edited October 30, 2024 by Branston Pickle

[essex canary 631]

3 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

That isn’t necessarily correct.

And you do realise the accounts are audited  - your issue is with the auditors rather than the club.

You have a pretty weird life if the majority of it is nit-picking everything the club says and does.

 

It is a pity then that not long ago the Club took the Auditor recommendation from shareholders then changed it mid AGM's without reference back to shareholders. According to one poster on here the new Auditor is one of Stu's mates. If that is true blame the Webbers - both of them.

[Well b back 3,653]

8 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The text changes I have highlighted in Yellow are where the Club's descriptions are simply wrong or incomplete.

I will forward another response re transfers one of which can be verified as correct, the other which is in error by £5 million.

Please don’t bother other than you I really don’t think anyone is interested.

Who to trust you or the auditors ?. All you said about WBA, Villa and Wolves turned out to be complete tosh.

 

[norwich canary 171]

Unfortunately Essex you are dealing with folks with retardation 

if they had read David Brailsford and his theory of marginal gains then they would understand why this is a sign of a club that isn’t functions optimally 

[essex canary 631]

2 minutes ago, norwich canary said:

Unfortunately Essex you are dealing with folks with retardation 

if they had read David Brailsford and his theory of marginal gains then they would understand why this is a sign of a club that isn’t functions optimally 

There is certainly a Normal for Norfolk element about it or perhaps a Normal for West Midlands aspect with someone who doesn't understand that West Broms gate money is £5 million versus Norwich at £11 million plus.

[shefcanary 3,081]

Oh jeez, the clue is in the name of the statement - "cash" flow. If you are able to produce a cash flow direct from the I&E and Balance Sheet, I'd always argue what is shown is not "true" cash flows.

The underlying true flow of cash of an entity cannot be reconciled directly back to the main headings in the I&E and Balance Sheet in every type of flow, you'd have to have all the backing detail to do this. A cash flow statement should be exactly that - the report showing the actual flow of cash through the entity in question, so for instance in most entities you should do this directly from the bank statements.

All a reader of the accounts can do is highlight where a figure purporting to summarise, say, interest payable is the same as that reported elsewhere as the I&E charge in the year, then the cash flow has been fudged! Which, in this years accounts is the case and one of the first things I reported on when the accounts came out. 

The question as always, from an auditors point of view, is does the statement materially distort the readers potential view of the accounts? I picked Interest Payable figures up in my review because (in my view) the interest payable figures being the same in terms of cash flow and charge, prevents a reader of the accounts having a true view of what is actually happening with the loans repayable to Norfolk Holdings. As the auditors seemed happy for the lack of disclosure around those loans in general, then I'd argue their view of materiality has to be completely different to mine. And as others have said, the blame here lies with the auditors, not the club. [Although if I was in Richens' position I'd be extremely embarrassed by the lack of disclosure, so as an FCA my finger is pointed at him from a professional point of view - but accept from the majority of people, WTF].

[norwich canary 171]

10 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Oh jeez, the clue is in the name of the statement - "cash" flow. If you are able to produce a cash flow direct from the I&E and Balance Sheet, I'd always argue what is shown is not "true" cash flows.

The underlying true flow of cash of an entity cannot be reconciled directly back to the main headings in the I&E and Balance Sheet in every type of flow, you'd have to have all the backing detail to do this. A cash flow statement should be exactly that - the report showing the actual flow of cash through the entity in question, so for instance in most entities you should do this directly from the bank statements.

All a reader of the accounts can do is highlight where a figure purporting to summarise, say, interest payable is the same as that reported elsewhere as the I&E charge in the year, then the cash flow has been fudged! Which, in this years accounts is the case and one of the first things I reported on when the accounts came out. 

The question as always, from an auditors point of view, is does the statement materially distort the readers potential view of the accounts? I picked Interest Payable figures up in my review because (in my view) the interest payable figures being the same in terms of cash flow and charge, prevents a reader of the accounts having a true view of what is actually happening with the loans repayable to Norfolk Holdings. As the auditors seemed happy for the lack of disclosure around those loans in general, then I'd argue their view of materiality has to be completely different to mine. And as others have said, the blame here lies with the auditors, not the club. [Although if I was in Richens' position I'd be extremely embarrassed by the lack of disclosure, so as an FCA my finger is pointed at him from a professional point of view - but accept from the majority of people, WTF].

Have you ever considered a career in treating people with insomnia? 

[Lord Horn (again) 154]

This is the sort of thread that put me off maths at school!!!

[dylanisabaddog 6,197]

3 hours ago, essex canary said:

The text changes I have highlighted in Yellow are where the Club's descriptions are simply wrong or incomplete.

I will forward another response re transfers one of which can be verified as correct, the other which is in error by £5 million.

So this is simply your adjustments! 

For God sake! On another thread you incorrectly accused the club of wrongly including interest paid and a loan received in the cash flow statement. As you now know, they were correct. You should have shut up at that point but you went on to accuse Delia Smith of tax avoidance. Both of those statements are nonsense and both are potentially libelous. 

You clearly aren't qualified to comment on any points regarding accountancy matters but you've done it yet again. 

Quite frankly you must have a brain the size of a pea. For goodness sake shut up. You are making yourself look very silly indeed. 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,234]

1 minute ago, dylanisabaddog said:

So this is simply your adjustments! 

For God sake! On another thread you incorrectly accused the club of wrongly including interest paid and a loan received in the cash flow statement. As you now know, they were correct. You should have shut up at that point but you went on to accuse Delia Smith of tax avoidance. Both of those statements are nonsense and both are potentially libelous. 

You clearly aren't qualified to comment on any points regarding accountancy matters but you've done it yet again. 

Quite frankly you must have a brain the size of a pea. For goodness sake shut up. You are making yourself look very silly indeed. 

I actually think that Essex is a very clever parody account, light years ahead of the likes of Vince and Norwich canary* (*I know norwich canary is a real person who follows NCFC home ad away, I am just referring to his way of posting on here)...............

[essex canary 631]

4 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I'm sorry but I don't understand that explanation. Has the club published changes to the accounts or are these just adjustments you have decided are required? 

So to the Transfers.

Gain On Sale of Players is £13,376K to this must be added net movement of £5,908K (shown in Note 13 as £22,602K minus £16,694K) to arrive at player contract sale value of £19,284K. This is then offset by £5,165K net increase in amount owed by other clubs (shown in Note 17 as £24,153K minus £18,988K) to equal £14,119K as per the Cash Flow Statement. BINGO! for Sales.

Now Purchases. As per Note 13, £8,819K player contract purchase value plus reduction in creditors as per Note 19 in two parts. Page 71 has £898K (being £6,644K minus £5,746K) plus page 72 has £2,795K (being £5,109K minus £2,314K). £8,819K plus £898K plus £2,795K = £12,512K cash paid out for new players NOT £7,626K as quoted in the Cash Flow Statement. Hence the main element of the £5 million discrepancy.    

 

 

 

[dylanisabaddog 6,197]

9 minutes ago, essex canary said:

So to the Transfers.

Gain On Sale of Players is £13,376K to this must be added net movement of £5,908K (shown in Note 13 as £22,602K minus £16,694K) to arrive at player contract sale value of £19,284K. This is then offset by £5,165K net increase in amount owed by other clubs (shown in Note 17 as £24,153K minus £18,988K) to equal £14,119K as per the Cash Flow Statement. BINGO! for Sales.

Now Purchases. As per Note 13, £8,819K player contract purchase value plus reduction in creditors as per Note 19 in two parts. Page 71 has £898K (being £6,644K minus £5,746K) plus page 72 has £2,795K (being £5,109K minus £2,314K). £8,819K plus £898K plus £2,795K = £12,512K cash paid out for new players NOT £7,626K as quoted in the Cash Flow Statement. Hence the main element of the £5 million discrepancy.    

 

 

 

Accounts are based on the basis of income recognition not on actual payments received and made. In other words, income earned but not necessarily received and expenditure incurred but not necessarily received. 

A cashflow statement simply reconclies the bank and cash accounts to the bank statements. 

You haven't got the faintest idea what you're talking about. 

Edited October 30, 2024 by dylanisabaddog

[wcorkcanary 4,839]

2 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Accounts are based on the basis of income recognition not on actual payments received and made.

A cashflow statement simply reconclies the bank and cash accounts to the bank statements. 

You haven't got the faintest idea what you're talking about. 

He's an idiot. Waveney  is nearly as clever as him but not quite. 

[essex canary 631]

6 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

So this is simply your adjustments! 

For God sake! On another thread you incorrectly accused the club of wrongly including interest paid and a loan received in the cash flow statement. As you now know, they were correct. You should have shut up at that point but you went on to accuse Delia Smith of tax avoidance. Both of those statements are nonsense and both are potentially libelous. 

You clearly aren't qualified to comment on any points regarding accountancy matters but you've done it yet again. 

Quite frankly you must have a brain the size of a pea. For goodness sake shut up. You are making yourself look very silly indeed. 

You are being very ignorant.

In the very first line the word 'Loss' should have brackets around it but hasn't.

The purpose of the third and fourth lines is to take out 'Interest Payable' and 'Interest Receivable' rather than the words 'received' and 'paid' as recorded in the Club's publication them replace them further down the page with 'Interest Received' and 'Interest Paid' which may not necessarily be the same figure and in the context of 'Paid' clearly isn't as there is an amount of £802K (£1,431K minus £629K) in the middle of Note 18 page 71 that is clearly 'Payable' but NOT 'Paid'. 

[essex canary 631]

4 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Accounts are based on the basis of income recognition not on actual payments received and made.

A cashflow statement simply reconclies the bank and cash accounts to the bank statements. 

You haven't got the faintest idea what you're talking about. 

A Cashflow Statement can be produced by either the Direct Method or Indirect Method. In practice almost everyone chooses the latter as is the case here. The indirect method works and must logically reconcile everything in the manner I have explained. 

Please consult an accounting textbook if unsure. Strongly recommended would be 'The Price of Football' - Kieran Maguire, Chapter 4 - The Cash Flow Statement.  

[dylanisabaddog 6,197]

2 minutes ago, essex canary said:

You are being very ignorant.

In the very first line the word 'Loss' should have brackets around it but hasn't.

The purpose of the third and fourth lines is to take out 'Interest Payable' and 'Interest Receivable' rather than the words 'received' and 'paid' as recorded in the Club's publication them replace them further down the page with 'Interest Received' and 'Interest Paid' which may not necessarily be the same figure and in the context of 'Paid' clearly isn't as there is an amount of £802K (£1,431K minus £629K) in the middle of Note 18 page 71 that is clearly 'Payable' but NOT 'Paid'. 

I'm going to charge you for any future advice. I'm fully qualified to do so. 

I have explained to you why you are wrong and I'm not wasting any more of my time. 

For the last time, the cashflow statement is a statement of fact and relates to money deposited and withdrawn. If it isn't correct the accounts wouldn't balance. 

You are in very dangerous territory. You are effectively accusing an auditor and the Board of Directors of publishing incorrect accounts. I strongly recommend that you stop. 

[TIL 1010 5,303]

If this thread is a sign of what is to come at the AGM with our resident clown getting to his feet given half a chance every five minutes we may well see the lowest  attendance on the night in living memory.