Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Go fuck yourselves FSG


Neil G
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, aRdja said:

The club’s auditors (EY) passed with first class honours there, no?

No. The article was literally about how the big 4 are shit. So if you're saying they weren't champions shitness, you're right. But they still fell short in 3 of 10 audits. Maybe in a world where Patrick Bamford is a top striker that is first class. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

No. The article was literally about how the big 4 are shit. So if you're saying they weren't champions shitness, you're right. But they still fell short in 3 of 10 audits. Maybe in a world where Patrick Bamford is a top striker that is first class. 

You’re better than that Barry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, lifetime fan said:


Bamford isn’t though. 

Happy to discuss on the summer transfers thread. Not sure what the relevance is here. It’s just an unnecessary dig IMO. I’ve always been respectful. For what it’s worth Bamford scored twice the amount of goals Bobby did in the league last season. This forum just have a really weird tendency to hate everything English. Seems a bit contrived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, aRdja said:

Happy to discuss on the summer transfers thread. Not sure what the relevance is here. It’s just an unnecessary dig IMO. I’ve always been respectful. For what it’s worth Bamford scored twice the amount of goals Bobby did in the league last season. This forum just have a really weird tendency to hate everything English. Seems a bit contrived.


It was a lighthearted joke not a dig, fucking hell. 
 

My ol fella is a massive Leeds fan, discuss Bamford with him. He’ll tell you exactly how bang fucking average Bamford is. 
 

Bobby has mostly been poor for the last two seasons - what has that got to do with anything? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, lifetime fan said:


It was a lighthearted joke not a dig, fucking hell. 
 

My ol fella is a massive Leeds fan, discuss Bamford with him. He’ll tell you exactly how bang fucking average Bamford is. 
 

Bobby has mostly been poor for the last two seasons - what has that got to do with anything? 

I wasn’t talking about your quip. I was referring to Barry’s comment. 
 

If we have Bamford in the team he’d be competing for Bobby’s starting spot. Based on last season, he’d provide more goals yet the same number of assists. I’m happy to have discussions about Bamford, as I’m a fan of his. That wasn’t the issue at all. 
 

Barry claimed “accounts are worthless”, and provided an article as support stating that based on FRC’s testing they got it spot on 71% of the time and needed sone improvements. I just couldn’t really reconcile the two. If anything it shows the system is working as their work gets reviews periodically by FRC. For me to be able to accept his statement, I need more than that. This is coming from someone who hates audit… did a 2 month internship at one of the big 4 and hated every minute. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, aRdja said:

I wasn’t talking about your quip. I was referring to Barry’s comment. 
 

If we have Bamford in the team he’d be competing for Bobby’s starting spot. Based on last season, he’d provide more goals yet the same number of assists. I’m happy to have discussions about Bamford, as I’m a fan of his. That wasn’t the issue at all. 
 

Barry claimed “accounts are worthless”, and provided an article as support stating that based on FRC’s testing they got it spot on 71% of the time and needed sone improvements. I just couldn’t really reconcile the two. If anything it shows the system is working as their work gets reviews periodically by FRC. For me to be able to accept his statement, I need more than that. This is coming from someone who hates audit… did a 2 month internship at one of the big 4 and hated every minute. 


You quoted my post, didn’t mention Barry and said it was an unnecessary dig. 
 

I’m happy to talk Bamford if you like, I don’t actually think he’s bang average. 
 

I think he’s dogshit. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, lifetime fan said:


You quoted my post, didn’t mention Barry and said it was an unnecessary dig. 
 

I’m happy to talk Bamford if you like, I don’t actually think he’s bang average. 
 

I think he’s dogshit. 

The post that you quoted literally said that it was a comment that I thought would’ve been beneath him. Wrt to your view on Bamford, that’s not not entirely unexpected as he’s not the most fashionable of footballers, even though some of our best players have come from lower clubs (Southampton, Hull, Newcastle amongst others).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, aRdja said:

I wasn’t talking about your quip. I was referring to Barry’s comment. 
 

If we have Bamford in the team he’d be competing for Bobby’s starting spot. Based on last season, he’d provide more goals yet the same number of assists. I’m happy to have discussions about Bamford, as I’m a fan of his. That wasn’t the issue at all. 
 

Barry claimed “accounts are worthless”, and provided an article as support stating that based on FRC’s testing they got it spot on 71% of the time and needed sone improvements. I just couldn’t really reconcile the two. If anything it shows the system is working as their work gets reviews periodically by FRC. For me to be able to accept his statement, I need more than that. This is coming from someone who hates audit… did a 2 month internship at one of the big 4 and hated every minute. 

We've been through all this a million times on here. It's fucking tedious and everyone who wants to believe the club is lilly white, will continue to believe this. Last transfer window @FrenchEyeGlass posted here about how worthless it all is and his actual fucking job is to see through audited accounts on a M&A team in an investment bank. So we had an expert in the issue and the response was "nah, audited accounts are fucking ace". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If audited accounts are only right 70% of the time, that means they are only wrong 30% of the time.
 

So there is more than double the chance they are right than wrong.

 

So wouldn’t it make sense to go with the overwhelming majority than the minority? 
 

There is a 30% our accounts are wrong but a 70% our accounts are right? 
 

Or is that too simple and those with no inside knowledge of accounting, audit and football finances know better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

We've been through all this a million times on here. It's fucking tedious and everyone who wants to believe the club is lilly white, will continue to believe this. Last transfer window @FrenchEyeGlass posted here about how worthless it all is and his actual fucking job is to see through audited accounts on a M&A team in an investment bank. So we had an expert in the issue and the response was "nah, audited accounts are fucking ace". 

With all due real to FrenchEyeGlass that’s anecdotal, and the article you posted actually refutes that. Take EY for example, the FRC found 70% of their work are of satisfactory quality and require no improvements, (worth noting that only one audit was identified to require significant improvements, which equates to 7%,  source posted below). However that was deemed not quite good enough, and they were instructed to implement urgent improvements. If anything this should provide you with some comfort that their work gets reviewed regularly and very high standards are expected and applied.

 

https://www.accountancydaily.co/aqi-2020-frc-finds-third-audits-need-improvement

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

We've been through all this a million times on here. It's fucking tedious and everyone who wants to believe the club is lilly white, will continue to believe this. 


Delicious irony. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Scott_M said:


Delicious irony. 

It is isnt it? I mean someone posts on the interweb and it's taken they're an 'expert' on the subject matter? Yeah, I'll take it someone is an expert when they posting on Accounting Web or their accounting company's blog.

 

I dont think anyone claims the club is pure as the driven snow and it's a case of people producing facts that the club is up to 'fraudulent' activity. Because that's what manipulating accounts to hid money being taken out and presumably avoiding tax at the very least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, dockers_strike said:

I agree with your first bit. It's their company. They could take as much money out of it as they wanted, legally and just like the Glazers.

 

I personally think the breakdown of wages is a pipedream though. Why should the players or any individual have the amount they earn splattered all over the shop just to placate the people who claim our wage bill is inflated, ergo the players arent on big wedges?

 

Arent they allowed to have this stuff private (that's not a question directed at you)?

 

Many companies consider discussing how much you earn with colleagues to be a breach of confidential info. Yeah, in the case of mundane jobs we have or have had, it's a method for controlling wage inflation.

 

But, at the risk of repeating myself, I want to see hard evidence of financial misconduct within the club else I dont take on board what others say about an 'over inflated wage bill.'

 

Swiss Rambler does excellent analysise of club accounts but even he doesnt know how the club's performance related bonuses to the players is structured.

 

Some people still believed Wijnaldum was on the same 75 grand a week 5 years after he signed for us and despite being integral to the team that got to play in a Europa League Final, 2 Champions League Finals, winning one, finishing 2nd in the PL with a then club record points total, winning the PL the season after plus also winning the FIFA World Club Championship and UEFA Super Cup, the latter two likely having a far smaller bonus payment that the major achievements.

I don't think an itemised breakdown is what's being suggested, though may be wrong/can't speak for anyone else 

But do we even have a basic breakdown between, say, directors, management staff, coaching staff, playing staff, admin staff, match day staff?

If we do, great where?  If not then I think the wage bill is the crux of the matter, a lot can come under that heading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Moo said:

I don't think an itemised breakdown is what's being suggested, though may be wrong/can't speak for anyone else 

But do we even have a basic breakdown between, say, directors, management staff, coaching staff, playing staff, admin staff, match day staff?

If we do, great where?  If not then I think the wage bill is the crux of the matter, a lot can come under that heading.

They’d report how much they’re paying their directors, but probably wouldn’t split out the staff remuneration. What’s your concern?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, redinblack said:

I think the problem with audits are that they are only a fraction of the work, so if PWC, KPMG etc are auditing these big companies and also doing consulting and project work for the same client as well its going to be a big call for them to qualify an audit or say something bad. And has history has shown, they wont.

Over here the SEC has teeth, hence arthur andersens no longer exist for example.   Perhaps the UK is more laissez faire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, aRdja said:

They’d report how much they’re paying their directors, but probably wouldn’t split out the staff remuneration. What’s your concern?

That although they're not paying themselves in dividends (or a small amount), instead paying themselves a wage.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Moo said:

I don't think an itemised breakdown is what's being suggested, though may be wrong/can't speak for anyone else 

But do we even have a basic breakdown between, say, directors, management staff, coaching staff, playing staff, admin staff, match day staff?

If we do, great where?  If not then I think the wage bill is the crux of the matter, a lot can come under that heading.

Im no expert on company accounts. The accounts say the directors dont take a divi. The highest paid director is on about £1.3m according to page 25 of the accounts.

 

It's interesting to note of the £325m often quoted as 'the wage bill,' this is made up of £34m in Social Security and just over £2m 'pension costs.' The total wage bill is spread over nearly 900 people employed by the club but clearly, the lion's share of money will be taken by the players.

 

Current UK law is a company must file accounts. However, the law permits the general public to view or obtain abbreviated accounts only such as what you can get from the club or Companies House. The more detailed accounts are kept in house because the info is commercially sensitive.

 

That applies to all UK companies as far as Im aware although micro companies can be different.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...