RobOAFC Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Instead of bleating about it on here, why don't those of you that are concerned go ask Simon if he'll let some fans look through the books again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusoe Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Why are fees grouped together? a proper audit would demand items are individualised. That's what happened where I worked, football clubs should be no different. Proper audit work would presumably involve ensuring that player registrations are valued correctly, including taking into account the fees paid. But doing the work properly is not the same as publishing the results in that level of detail. There's simply no legal requirement to do so. And, as has been said, the company is exempt from publishing full, unabridged, audited financial statements because of its size. Oh dear...the day folk start listening to the "we have no right to know about finances" bollocks that Blue Jazzer, Wardie, Stagger Lee and several others are peddling is the day folk deserve every disaster we hit! They must think that Chris Moore was a decent guy! But we don't, legally, have a right to know. That's just a fact. Ethically? Morally? Because companies get away with too much and hide it from concerned stakeholders? Sure, agree with all of that. I get why people feel they ought to know. But it's still not a right in any meaningful, useful sense. We don't do though. Do we? I understand why people want to know but that doesn't mean we have a right to know. Yup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) We don't do though. Do we? I understand why people want to know but that doesn't mean we have a right to know. I disagree. Within reason, we do have a right. My money (irrelevant how minimal) has gone into the club. I still have X amount of games left on my Season Ticket. I have a right to know if the club will exist tomorrow. You can call that extreme...wasn't what Chris Moore did extreme and no-one saw it coming. Sounds like some folk didn't give a :censored: what Moore did because hey, he can do what he likes...morally, it is wrong. Right at this moment, I am a creditor of the club, But it sounds like you get :censored: all for having morals these days...and I bet most of those saying they can do what they like with the finances were up in arms over the Ched Evans signing! Edited February 3, 2016 by boundaryblue80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 They're a small company, don't even need an audit which pretty much allows them to do what they want. I dont think the inland revenue would agree with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davegtt Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I disagree. Within reason, we do have a right. My money (irrelevant how minimal) has gone into the club. I still have X amount of games left on my Season Ticket. I have a right to know if the club will exist tomorrow. You can call that extreme...wasn't what Chris Moore did extreme and no-one saw it coming. Sounds like some folk didn't give a :censored: what Moore did because hey, he can do what he likes...morally, it is wrong. Right at this moment, I am a creditor of the club, But it sounds like you get :censored: all for having morals these days...and I bet most of those saying they can do what they like with the finances were up in arms over the Ched Evans signing! Because you buy a can of Coca Cola every day on your day to work you do not have a right to know what their accounts say. I'm sure Latics will be here tomorrow and at the end of the season. That is pretty obvious. As stated, I doubt he'll have sacked Dunn and employed Shez with an attitude of closure. I think we are going way over the top here about the clubs finances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Because you buy a can of Coca Cola every day on your day to work you do not have a right to know what their accounts say. I'm sure Latics will be here tomorrow and at the end of the season. That is pretty obvious. As stated, I doubt he'll have sacked Dunn and employed Shez with an attitude of closure. I think we are going way over the top here about the clubs finances. I am not a creditor of Coca Cola when I buy a can of coke... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Proper audit work would presumably involve ensuring that player registrations are valued correctly, including taking into account the fees paid. But doing the work properly is not the same as publishing the results in that level of detail. There's simply no legal requirement to do so. And, as has been said, the company is exempt from publishing full, unabridged, audited financial statements because of its size. But we don't, legally, have a right to know. That's just a fact. Ethically? Morally? Because companies get away with too much and hide it from concerned stakeholders? Sure, agree with all of that. I get why people feel they ought to know. But it's still not a right in any meaningful, useful sense. Yup. Then the law needs changing, all businesses should be propery audited annually and fully accountable for every indivudual penny of their transactions. My company was a national one and thats exactly what we had to do, small businesses should abide by the same rules. Somehow I don't expect George Osborne will bother though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davegtt Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Well if you think you are a Creditor because you have a season ticket, go and make your demands to OAFC rather than bleat on here as if you are being hard done by. As a Creditor you are paid every week and on time at 3pm, granted your payment is not exactly up to scratch at the moment but there is never a promise of what your ticket on match days will supply, other than a "match". There is no reason to believe you wont be paid on time again this Saturday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wardie Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 First off, I am a long-standing Oldham Athletic fan, secondly I am a football fan. When I go to watch a football match, I go to take my mind off everyday stress and worries and to just generally enjoy myself. Win, draw or lose. I pay my money, I sometimes buy a program or food, I drink from my flask when it's freezing cold and then I go home...happy if Latics have won, a bit 'meh' if it's a draw and "well, maybe next time" if they have lost. Personally, I'm not interested in the goings on at board level, that is not why I support the club. It's all about the football. I support the team and the manager who selects and puts that team out. My opinions, for what they are worth, get voiced at the match itself. If the club gets relegated, then it gets relegated. It's not the end of the world, it doesn't really impact on my personal wealth or health...it's just football. Why people get so ate-up and wound-up is beyond me. All that anger and stress pours out into public forums and becomes guided at the wrong people.If you want to be like that, then that's up to you.It's not for me and I expect others to respect that.I pay my money.I watch.I go home.End of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 First off, I am a long-standing Oldham Athletic fan, secondly I am a football fan. When I go to watch a football match, I go to take my mind off everyday stress and worries and to just generally enjoy myself. Win, draw or lose. I pay my money, I sometimes buy a program or food, I drink from my flask when it's freezing cold and then I go home...happy if Latics have won, a bit 'meh' if it's a draw and "well, maybe next time" if they have lost. Personally, I'm not interested in the goings on at board level, that is not why I support the club. It's all about the football. I support the team and the manager who selects and puts that team out. My opinions, for what they are worth, get voiced at the match itself. If the club gets relegated, then it gets relegated. It's not the end of the world, it doesn't really impact on my personal wealth or health...it's just football. Why people get so ate-up and wound-up is beyond me. All that anger and stress pours out into public forums and becomes guided at the wrong people. If you want to be like that, then that's up to you. It's not for me and I expect others to respect that. I pay my money. I watch. I go home. End of. I guess you weren't the arsed about what went on in July 2003 then... We aren't cut from the same cloth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueJazzer Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 So by your own admission...the fact we DONT play hardball means this possible forthcoming relegation could soon be followed by another... But hey...let's not worry about that eh! I didn't say anything like that at all. I agree we roll over at the earliest bid, and I agree other clubs see us as a 'historical' soft touch. And I also agree that Crewe play hard ball and therefore also are not seen as a soft touch. Someone said it made no difference as they are still doing crap. I was trying to make the point that if they didn't play hard ball then they may be in a much worse position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Would it be overly cynical of me to wonder whether players being paid late recently made it into the press (despite it not being the first time this has happened), because it was becoming abundantly clear that Tarkowski would leave Brentford and that the sell-on clause would be in everyone's minds? Should we assume we no longer have sell-on clauses on the likes of Korey Smith and JCH? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wozzer Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I dont think the inland revenue would agree with that. HMRC clearly have a right to inspect if they suspect anything is amiss. Given the losses accrued over many years I doubt the company is paying any Corporation Tax so unless they suspect the financial position is severely misrepresented it probably isn't even on their radar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusoe Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Then the law needs changing, all businesses should be propery audited annually and fully accountable for every indivudual penny of their transactions. My company was a national one and thats exactly what we had to do, small businesses should abide by the same rules. Somehow I don't expect George Osborne will bother though. Yeah, good luck with that one. There are sound business and moral reasons why not all companies can and should be audited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Yeah, good luck with that one. There are sound business and moral reasons why not all companies can and should be audited. Moral not to be open to scrutiny? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddySmoker Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Moral not to be open to scrutiny? HMRC see full Accounts-not just those submitted to be in the public domain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusoe Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Would it be overly cynical of me to wonder whether players being paid late recently made it into the press (despite it not being the first time this has happened), because it was becoming abundantly clear that Tarkowski would leave Brentford and that the sell-on clause would be in everyone's minds? Should we assume we no longer have sell-on clauses on the likes of Korey Smith and JCH? Ha. Wouldn't surprise me in the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L1onheartNew Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 What I would hope is that this thread doesn't drag on as long as the Micah one did. Whether or not I believe it or not is a completely different matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusoe Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Moral not to be open to scrutiny? Why should a charity pay £30,000 to be audited to prove they can add up? Why should your newsagent, or your local? Or people buying and selling stuff off eBay? Drive them out of business, reduce the money they have for investment, for what? All an audit proves is that the accounts they wrote up are more or less accurate and in line with accounting standards. Not that they have or will make good decisions. Only audit firms would benefit from making everyone be audited, and they couldn't cope with the demand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I think the value of current players is based on what we paid for them. I would have thought a sell on like Tarky's would be listed as an asset, discounted against the risk of never getting it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusoe Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I think the value of current players is based on what we paid for them. I would have thought a sell on like Tarky's would be listed as an asset, discounted against the risk of never getting it I've absolutely no idea how you account for the value of a sell-on clause. Fair value? Dunno how you could objectively calculate it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmer1 Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Would it be overly cynical of me to wonder whether players being paid late recently made it into the press (despite it not being the first time this has happened), because it was becoming abundantly clear that Tarkowski would leave Brentford and that the sell-on clause would be in everyone's minds? Should we assume we no longer have sell-on clauses on the likes of Korey Smith and JCH? we shouldnt assume anything but now its been mentioned every :censored:er will! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I'd rate a sell on clause as a Contingent Asset - which cannot be included in accounting statements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyPimp Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I've absolutely no idea how you account for the value of a sell-on clause. Fair value? Dunno how you could objectively calculate it. As the potential income is highly contingent, I doubt that it would be recorded in the books until it actually crystallised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusoe Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) I'd rate a sell on clause as a Contingent Asset - which cannot be included in accounting statements. As the potential income is highly contingent, I doubt that it would be recorded in the books until it actually crystallised. Makes sense. Edited February 3, 2016 by Crusoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.